Ray Comfort Interview - The Atheist Experience #702

[Brock]

Hi friends,

In my recent "Dinner with Andre" post[1], I offered one example that
reflected the desire I had for profitable and edifying interaction on
forums like this one. Maybe a dinner among friends like Andre Gregory
and Wally Shawn had doesn't interest some. I still think that would
be the best kind of interaction and discussion, and confess I have
wanted that kind of bonhomie with y'all in my posts.

But I find that generally the stakes are too high for that kind of
gentle "disagreement among friends" kind of interaction. There is a
presupposition or moral investment that each person brings to a
discussion that one ignores at a great peril. Participating on this
forum has helped me understand that much better, though I confess I
still struggle to adequately represent and address these differences.
With your patience and future interactions, and the Lord's grace, I
pray that I can improve. :)

So, it was a delight to me to find another example of positive
debate. Not so chummy as "My dinner with Andre", but still definitely
the kind of interaction I would be pleased to be involved in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzF8SMQOxU

Here Ray Comfort talks on "The Atheist Experience" program for an hour
of really good interactions! I was pleased with the candid
discussions both by Ray and by the atheist hosts Matt Dillahunty and
Russell Glasser (who were not known to me earlier). This is another
wonderful example of the great kind of back and forth debate and
interactions I crave on AvC.

Watch the program: It is my judgement that all 3 persons are
genuinely, sincerely and honestly interacting with each other, and
trying to faithfully represent what they believe, and honestly
evaluate the other side's arguments and in good faith refute the other
side's positions.

*sigh* … I'd like more of that here, please! :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/64bf6668dce1d7ac

[Ian Betts]

Brock I will just make two comments.

Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.

Also It is very different if we met face to face to discus our ideas than if we just contribute via the web. Then we see body language as well as voice. 

--
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

[Eris]

Brock I would like to become and obtuse, pathetic loser like you. Can you give me some Bible verses to get me started?

Thanks

Eris.

You never married did you? 

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock I will just make two comments.
>
> Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
> notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.

Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
perceived as "nice" by non-believers. I've considered carefully for
years that folks like you and others don't like being told that
without Christ you face eternal hell. It is very offensive and unfair
to some to be confronted with the idea that rather than being neutral
or basically good, people have a character with an inherent bias to
evil.

But that doesn't make the doctrines of sin and eternal judgment any
less true, or the need for salvation any less great. :(

So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?

My anecdotal experience here on AvC is that some posters simply aren't
able to interact with folks who offer a different view from them
without cursing, invective and vituperation. Anything rather than
calmly face a hard soul-searching and scripture searching discussion
about humankind's sinful nature, and its implications on our behavior,
and moral and ethical issues.

I think I do a pretty good job of disagreeing without being
disagreeable, but in a lot of cases non-believers simply tie being
"honest" or "nice" or having "integrity" as some other subjective
approval that means first agreeing to start from their presupposed
positions regarding the nature of reality (such as the "I'm basically
a good person" fallacy). But that isn't something I believe can be
supported, and I say so. Nicely. Honestly. And, with the Lord's
grace, I pray with integrity. :)

> Also It is very different if we met face to face to discus our ideas than if
> we just contribute via the web. Then we see body language as well as voice.
>

Thanks, Ian. The video I cited above was a phone conversation between
Ray and the atheist hosts, I thought it went as good as these kind of
conversations generally go. I felt that the atheist hosts were
generous in giving Ray time to respond to their issues, and I thought
they made several good points, and I thought Ray did a good job of
stating his positions and addressing weaknesses in the positions of
the other side. It wasn't a perfect exchange, and at times one could
sense the frustration each side had with the other at the other sides
inability to "see things my way" ... but I thought it was still a good
dialogue.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock I would like to become and obtuse, pathetic loser like you. Can you
> give me some Bible verses to get me started?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:08:51 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

Hi friends,

In my recent "Dinner with Andre" post[1], I offered one example that
reflected the desire I had for profitable and edifying interaction on
forums like this one.  Maybe a dinner among friends like Andre Gregory
and Wally Shawn had doesn't interest some. I still think that would 

be the best kind of interaction and discussion, and confess I have
wanted that kind of bonhomie with y'all in my posts.

The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any. This newsgroup is about voicing skepticism - both ways. 

 

But I find that generally the stakes are too high for that kind of
gentle "disagreement among friends" kind of interaction.  There is a
presupposition or moral investment that each person brings to a
discussion that one ignores at a great peril.  Participating on this
forum has helped me understand that much better, though I confess I
still struggle to adequately represent and address these differences.
With your patience and future interactions, and the Lord's grace, I
pray that I can improve. :)

So, it was a delight to me to find another example of positive
debate.  Not so chummy as "My dinner with Andre", but still definitely
the kind of interaction I would be pleased to be involved in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyzF8SMQOxU

Here Ray Comfort talks on "The Atheist Experience" program for an hour
of really good interactions!  I was pleased with the candid
discussions both by Ray and by the atheist hosts Matt Dillahunty and
Russell Glasser (who were not known to me earlier).  This is another
wonderful example of the great kind of back and forth debate and
interactions I crave on AvC.

Watch the program:  It is my judgement that all 3 persons are
genuinely, sincerely and honestly interacting with each other, and
trying to faithfully represent what they believe, and honestly
evaluate the other side's arguments and in good faith refute the other
side's positions.

*sigh* … I'd like more of that here, please!

I see this type of exchange here regularly, just not with you. 

[Ian Betts]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock I will just make two comments.
>
> Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
> notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.

Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
perceived as "nice" by non-believers.   I've considered carefully for
years that folks like you and others don't like being told that
without Christ you face eternal hell.  It is very offensive and unfair
to some to be confronted with the idea that rather than being neutral
or basically good, people have a character with an inherent bias to
evil.

But we do not see how from the bible written from men you can believe there if such a thing as god. The bible is just a story like any other you can read without anything to back up that any of it happened.  

But that doesn't make the doctrines of sin and eternal judgment any
less true, or the need for salvation any less great. :(

So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?

Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop calling us all sinful.

 

My anecdotal experience here on AvC is that some posters simply aren't
able to interact with folks who offer a different view from them
without cursing, invective and vituperation.  Anything rather than
calmly face a hard soul-searching and scripture searching discussion
about humankind's sinful nature, and its implications on our behavior,
and moral and ethical issues.

Some people may use harsh language but not all and why should we discuss what it not there in our view. That is like asking to to discuss the man in the moon who is just a fairy story.  

I think I do a pretty good job of disagreeing without being
disagreeable, but in a lot of cases non-believers simply tie being
"honest" or "nice" or having "integrity" as some other subjective
approval that means first agreeing to start from their presupposed
positions regarding the nature of reality (such as the "I'm basically
a good person" fallacy).  But that isn't something I believe can be
supported, and I say so.  Nicely.  Honestly.  And, with the Lord's
grace, I pray with integrity. :)

If you talked about reality and not about images in youir mind we could get somewhere. 

> Also It is very different if we met face to face to discus our ideas than if
> we just contribute via the web. Then we see body language as well as voice.
>

Thanks, Ian.  The video I cited above was a phone conversation between
Ray and the atheist hosts, I thought it went as good as these kind of
conversations generally go.  I felt that the atheist hosts were
generous in giving Ray time to respond to their issues, and I thought
they made several good points, and I thought Ray did a good job of
stating his positions and addressing weaknesses in the positions of
the other side.  It wasn't a perfect exchange, and at times one could
sense the frustration each side had with the other at the other sides
inability to "see things my way" ... but I thought it was still a good
dialogue.

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

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:08:51 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> Hi friends,
>>
>> In my recent "Dinner with Andre" post[1], I offered one example that
>> reflected the desire I had for profitable and edifying interaction on
>> forums like this one.  Maybe a dinner among friends like Andre Gregory
>> and Wally Shawn had doesn't interest some. I still think that would
>>
>> be the best kind of interaction and discussion, and confess I have
>> wanted that kind of bonhomie with y'all in my posts.
>
>
> The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.

Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing. In a
positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
contrasting positions. :)

>> Watch the program:  It is my judgement that all 3 persons are
>> genuinely, sincerely and honestly interacting with each other, and
>> trying to faithfully represent what they believe, and honestly
>> evaluate the other side's arguments and in good faith refute the other
>> side's positions.
>>
>> *sigh* … I'd like more of that here, please!
>
> I see this type of exchange here regularly, just not with you.

I consider I do better than some assess. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Brock I will just make two comments.
>> >
>> > Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
>> > notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.
>>
>> Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
>> perceived as "nice" by non-believers.   I've considered carefully for
>> years that folks like you and others don't like being told that
>> without Christ you face eternal hell.  It is very offensive and unfair
>> to some to be confronted with the idea that rather than being neutral
>> or basically good, people have a character with an inherent bias to
>> evil.
>
>
> But we do not see how from the bible written from men you can believe there
> if such a thing as god. The bible is just a story like any other you can
> read without anything to back up that any of it happened.

I consider a contrasting position: Uniquely, the bible is divinely
composed, and the very revelation of God. :)

>> But that doesn't make the doctrines of sin and eternal judgment any
>> less true, or the need for salvation any less great. :(
>>
>> So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
>> like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
>> labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
>> Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
>> and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
>> statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?
>
> Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
> calling us all sinful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJccOedwHT0

>> My anecdotal experience here on AvC is that some posters simply aren't
>> able to interact with folks who offer a different view from them
>> without cursing, invective and vituperation.  Anything rather than
>> calmly face a hard soul-searching and scripture searching discussion
>> about humankind's sinful nature, and its implications on our behavior,
>> and moral and ethical issues.
>
> Some people may use harsh language but not all and why should we discuss
> what it not there in our view. That is like asking to to discuss the man in
> the moon who is just a fairy story.

I do not so characterize. :)

>> I think I do a pretty good job of disagreeing without being
>> disagreeable, but in a lot of cases non-believers simply tie being
>> "honest" or "nice" or having "integrity" as some other subjective
>> approval that means first agreeing to start from their presupposed
>> positions regarding the nature of reality (such as the "I'm basically
>> a good person" fallacy).  But that isn't something I believe can be
>> supported, and I say so.  Nicely.  Honestly.  And, with the Lord's
>> grace, I pray with integrity. :)
>
>
> If you talked about reality and not about images in youir mind we could get
> somewhere.

I consider I do much better than the assessment. :)

Regards,

Brock

[zencycle]

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:59:39 AM UTC-4, Brock wrote:

So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?

 

As soon as you (and I mean you, specifically, brock) demean someones character by stating that their perception of their good nature is a fallacy for simply not believing in the god you choose to beleive in, then yes, you open yourself up vitriol. Your own bible tells you not to judge, yet by insulting someone as being amoral for not following your _chosen_ creed you are doing exactly that. If you pacticed waht you preached, you might get a more receptive audience here.

[Ian Betts]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Brock I will just make two comments.
>> >
>> > Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
>> > notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.
>>
>> Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
>> perceived as "nice" by non-believers.   I've considered carefully for
>> years that folks like you and others don't like being told that
>> without Christ you face eternal hell.  It is very offensive and unfair
>> to some to be confronted with the idea that rather than being neutral
>> or basically good, people have a character with an inherent bias to
>> evil.
>
>
> But we do not see how from the bible written from men you can believe there
> if such a thing as god. The bible is just a story like any other you can
> read without anything to back up that any of it happened.

I consider a contrasting position:  Uniquely, the bible is divinely
composed, and the very revelation of God. :)

It was not if you study the bible Brock. it was written over a period of about 1600 years by 40 people not by your mythical god.

>> But that doesn't make the doctrines of sin and eternal judgment any
>> less true, or the need for salvation any less great. :(
>>
>> So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
>> like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
>> labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
>> Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
>> and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
>> statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?
>
> Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
> calling us all sinful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJccOedwHT0

>> My anecdotal experience here on AvC is that some posters simply aren't
>> able to interact with folks who offer a different view from them
>> without cursing, invective and vituperation.  Anything rather than
>> calmly face a hard soul-searching and scripture searching discussion
>> about humankind's sinful nature, and its implications on our behavior,
>> and moral and ethical issues.
>
> Some people may use harsh language but not all and why should we discuss
> what it not there in our view. That is like asking to to discuss the man in
> the moon who is just a fairy story.

I do not so characterize. :)

You do not but many do.

 

>> I think I do a pretty good job of disagreeing without being
>> disagreeable, but in a lot of cases non-believers simply tie being
>> "honest" or "nice" or having "integrity" as some other subjective
>> approval that means first agreeing to start from their presupposed
>> positions regarding the nature of reality (such as the "I'm basically
>> a good person" fallacy).  But that isn't something I believe can be
>> supported, and I say so.  Nicely.  Honestly.  And, with the Lord's
>> grace, I pray with integrity. :)
>
>
> If you talked about reality and not about images in youir mind we could get
> somewhere.

I consider I do much better than the assessment. :)

When you prove that I may listen 

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

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM, zencycle <zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:59:39 AM UTC-4, Brock wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
>> like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
>> labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
>> Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
>> and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
>> statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?
>
>
> As soon as you (and I mean you, specifically, brock) demean someones
> character by stating that their perception of their good nature is a fallacy
> for simply not believing in the god you choose to beleive in

But I haven't said such a position even once. If you consider I have,
you'll need to provide an explicit citation. :)

I was watching one of the forensic files TV shows recently, and a man,
under police questioning and the presentation of the forensic
evidence, admitted to breaking into a house and murdering a 70+ year
old woman while she was asleep in her bed stabbing her with a
screwdriver dozens and dozens of times. Though admitting to the
crime, I was struck by the defendant's attitude "this doesn't make me
a bad person, only a person who does bad things" (my paraphrase) ...

Such a person may feel demeaned if they are told that they have a
character that is objectively evil and wicked. But, if the objective
truth so indicates, there is no virtue to shy away from recognizing it
as the truth.

Now, I recognize that neither you nor I (as far as we are both aware)
have committed such a grisly crime; but I recognize that the bible
teaches that each and every person born into the world today is in
fact in possession of the same kind of evil nature. That may offend
the sensibilities of some. But it is the objective truth, and thus
the virtue is not in pretending we are otherwise.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I consider a contrasting position:  Uniquely, the bible is divinely
>> composed, and the very revelation of God. :)
>
>
> It was not

Sorry, Ian, I must disagree (without being disagreeable). :)

> if you study the bible Brock. it was written over a period of
> about 1600 years by 40 people not by your mythical god.

Well, I disagree with several aspects of the statement:

* the bible does not offer a pantheistic "god", it presents the
evidence for a unique, high and holy God who is special, in a
ontological class by Himself.
* I don't agree with the assessment of "myth" and instead consider the
bible to be objectively and specifically true
* I don't consider that for the bible to have been written by 40+
people over 1600+ years as a disqualification for the proposition that
"the bible is the word of God"

>> > Some people may use harsh language but not all and why should we discuss
>> > what it not there in our view. That is like asking to to discuss the man
>> > in
>> > the moon who is just a fairy story.
>>
>> I do not so characterize. :)
>
> You do not but many do.

Well, I'm glad you are able to distinguish my position. :)

>> > If you talked about reality and not about images in youir mind we could
>> > get
>> > somewhere.
>>
>> I consider I do much better than the assessment. :)
>
> When you prove that I may listen

I hope that you will. :)

Regards,

Brock

[zencycle]

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:19:03 PM UTC-4, Brock wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM, zencycle <zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>>
> As soon as you (and I mean you, specifically, brock) demean someones
> character by stating that their perception of their good nature is a fallacy
> for simply not believing in the god you choose to beleive in

But I haven't said such a position even once.  If you consider I have,
you'll need to provide an explicit citation. :)

 

"can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being labeled as "not nice" "

 

You're telling someone that their character is flawed because your bible says all peoples characters are flawed. You've said that in this forum hundreds of times over the years, and everyone who's every read any of your drivel is aware of it. We also all know that you would consider anyone who challanged you on the idea of inherent morality to be wrong based on your interpretaion of your version of the christian bible. Therefore, everytime you make the statement that someones character is flawed based on your bible, you demean that person based on the subjective morality in your bible.

 

 

Such a person may feel demeaned if they are told that they have a
character that is objectively evil and wicked.  But, if the objective
truth so indicates, there is no virtue to shy away from recognizing it
as the truth.

 

If it were the truth, certainly. Your interpretation of your version of the christian bible is hardly a credible source to pass judgement on people.

 

 I recognize that the bible
teaches that each and every person born into the world today is in
fact in possession of the same kind of evil nature.

 

It's a scary world you live in, brock. Thankfully, I don't live in a world where I think every person I meet is capable of stabbing someone 100 times with a screwdriver. That you do says alot about your character (and sanity), but no one elses.

 

 

 That may offend
the sensibilities of some.  But it is the objective truth

 

And once again, you conflate subjective morality with objective truth. And no, posting the link to the bible gateway again is _not_ proof. The fact is brock, you have a horrible character flaw of demeaning everyone under the guise of salvation. Just another example of religion using fear in an attempt to manipulate people.

 

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:14 PM, zencycle <zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:19:03 PM UTC-4, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 1:47 PM, zencycle <zenc...@bikerider.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> > As soon as you (and I mean you, specifically, brock) demean someones
>> > character by stating that their perception of their good nature is a
>> > fallacy
>> > for simply not believing in the god you choose to beleive in
>>
>> But I haven't said such a position even once.  If you consider I have,
>> you'll need to provide an explicit citation. :)
>
>
> "can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions like the "but I'm
> basically a good person" fallacy without being labeled as "not nice" "
>
> You're telling someone that their character is flawed because your bible
> says all peoples characters are flawed.

I think it is a bit more subtle than that. The bible does testify
that all humankind are sinners, and I believe it does so truthfully.
It shows through many real life examples all of the kinds of bad
behaviors humankind is capable of. It shows that buy measuring our
heart against the objective standard of God's moral law, each person
can understand that we all have an inherent bias to be bad.

> Therefore, everytime
> you make the statement that someones character is flawed based on your
> bible, you demean that person based on the subjective morality in your
> bible.

Or just look through the divine lens of God's moral law, and realize
that tragically, it is correct when it notes all have sinned and fall
short of the glory of God.

>> Such a person may feel demeaned if they are told that they have a
>> character that is objectively evil and wicked.  But, if the objective
>> truth so indicates, there is no virtue to shy away from recognizing it
>> as the truth.
>
> If it were the truth, certainly.

Well, then we are in agreement in that regard. And I do so note its
truth, though you disagree. :)

> Your interpretation of your version of the
> christian bible is hardly a credible source to pass judgement on people.

God's moral law is not subject to my interpretation of it. :)

>>  I recognize that the bible
>> teaches that each and every person born into the world today is in
>> fact in possession of the same kind of evil nature.
>
> It's a scary world you live in, brock.

The truth about reality is that each person faces the possibility of
such a fate each day. Pretty scary, and objectively true.

> Thankfully, I don't live in a world
> where I think every person I meet is capable of stabbing someone 100 times
> with a screwdriver.

It is true, humankind is capable of every kind of perfidy.

>>  That may offend
>> the sensibilities of some.  But it is the objective truth
>
> And once again, you conflate subjective morality with objective truth.

Or simply note that humankind's sinful character is an objective
truth, and that God is right to judicially govern and administer His
creation. But, in addition to justice, God also provides the offer of
mercy and pardon! :)

> And
> no, posting the link to the bible gateway again is _not_ proof. The fact is
> brock, you have a horrible character flaw of demeaning everyone under the
> guise of salvation. Just another example of religion using fear in an
> attempt to manipulate people.

Or facing a truth that is hard for some, and sharing that God saw
humankind's fallen situation, and was moved to provide a wholesome and
clean salvation in response ... :)

Regards,

Brock

[Ian Betts]

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.

Objective proof, what are you trying to put over now Brock your own ideas of what the bible says. You really are to high and mighty with these notions.

--
Ian

[Brock Organ]

> Objective proof, what are you trying to put over now Brock your own ideas of
> what the bible says. You really are to high and mighty with these notions.

Actually, Ian, what I said was not "objective proof", but "objective
truth", which are not the same thing ... :)

Regards,

Brock

[Birric Forcella]

Re: Brock

I may come to regret this, but perhaps it's worth the attempt.

I've read a lot of posts by Brock, and I think he doesn't deserve all
the invectives heaped on him. I have followed this group for a long
time and have read many of his posts. He is often quite thoughtful.


I realize that I am the kind of person who Brock would most abhor - a
perfect devil, so devilish that he doesn't even believe in god or
devil. In Brock's book I would also be morally totally corrupt, and I
make the kind of arguments that should drive him nuts. In short, I
have no idea why Brock would want to talk to me.

Yet, I would really like to have a discussion along the lines
suggested by Brock. It's boring preaching to the choir all the time,
and, for my best arguments to develop, I need something to push
against - without breaking it. I think Brock isn't easy to break, and
he may abide and not run.

One of my requirements would be that we don't evade questions,
especially not yes or no questions. You can qualify your answer in
the next paragraph, of course, but then you should always be ready for
more questions.

The Ray Comfort interview may be a starting point.

At base, I think, the opposing positions can be easily and succinctly
stated:

Brock: Uniquely, the bible is divinely composed, and the very
revelation of God.

Birric: Starting with the Big Bang, no event has ever been
demonstrated that even came close to needing divine or supernatural
intervention.

If we're dogmatic, then there is nothing to talk about. If we want to
talk about support for our views, then I'm open to anything.

Our views on morals and ethics are equally in stark opposition. I am
a militant anti-moralist and anti-ethicist.

Morals and ethics, man- or god-based, have the function of beating
people into shape according to some abstract and usually ill-defined
principle.

I do not deny that there are desirable and undesirable actions. But
the anti-moralist stance is, on the contrary, to beat the (hostile and
certainly not fine-tuned) environment, as well as society, into a
shape in which the prevailing incentives make desirable actions the
more pleasurable choice. Morality can have no role in that.

I also firmly believe that there is no free will, and that that is a
VERY good and desirable state of affairs. Only if we all operate
under the same laws of incentives and desires will it be possible to
converge on a better society. If we have free will, well, then it
will never be possible to understand undesirable acts. They are just
evil or sinful and, being free, they can have no reason or
explanation.

I am happily willing to lay out every aspect of my views and supply
the supporting thoughts.

As far as god and Jesus are concerned, our views could not be more
divergent:

Brock considers Jesus and god as all-good and all-just.

Since Jesus has been in on creaton from the very beginning as part of
the Trinity, I consider him a genocidal murderer, rapist and baby
killer who also invented eternal hellfire just for dissing him. If
you must have morals, then I consider my own life infinitely morally
superior to the life of Jesus. Indeed, even Dahmer's life would be
infinitely morally superior to Jesus'.

Again, I will be happy to support that view.

So, those are the opposing viewpoints - stated without rancor. Unless
we are honest from the outset, there is no point in talking.

On that basis, I would really be happy to engage in a candid
discussion with Brock. I also expect to raise some atheist opposition
with my anti-moral views.

Birric Forcella

Better explanations rule !

[Neil Kelsey]

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:26:35 AM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 11:08:51 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> Hi friends,
>>
>> In my recent "Dinner with Andre" post[1], I offered one example that
>> reflected the desire I had for profitable and edifying interaction on
>> forums like this one.  Maybe a dinner among friends like Andre Gregory
>> and Wally Shawn had doesn't interest some. I still think that would
>>
>> be the best kind of interaction and discussion, and confess I have
>> wanted that kind of bonhomie with y'all in my posts.
>
>
> The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.

Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
contrasting positions.

The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have, Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several outlandish stories. . 

 

>> Watch the program:  It is my judgement that all 3 persons are
>> genuinely, sincerely and honestly interacting with each other, and
>> trying to faithfully represent what they believe, and honestly
>> evaluate the other side's arguments and in good faith refute the other
>> side's positions.
>>
>> *sigh* … I'd like more of that here, please!
>
> I see this type of exchange here regularly, just not with you.

I consider I do better than some assess.

Of course you do, Brock 2000. That's the same kind of delusional thinking that permits you to be a Christian.  

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Birric Forcella <erni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I realize that I am the kind of person who Brock would most abhor - a
> perfect devil, so devilish that he doesn't even believe in god or
> devil.

Hi Birric,

Why do you think I would hate you? I don't believe I have given any
reason to so indicate. :(

> In Brock's book I would also be morally totally corrupt, and I
> make the kind of arguments that should drive him nuts.

Birric, I don't see why you think I would hate you for being totally
morally corrupt, when I note that I am also the very same way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

> In short, I
> have no idea why Brock would want to talk to me.

Well, I believe that I am a kindred spirit (I would say sinner, not
sure if you would agree) and that there is nothing about me, my
character and personality, that hasn't been tragically and without
reparation (in this lifetime) affected by sin. But my hope for
salvation is not simply for better things in this life time, but for
the best thing: eternal life to come. Because of God's gracious
unmerited mercy and pardon, some day I will be restored to a wholesome
and clean state, and enjoy the wonderful company of the Holy God for
all of eternity! That is something I believe worth sharing with
friends, like you! :D :D

> Yet, I would really like to have a discussion along the lines
> suggested by Brock.  It's boring preaching to the choir all the time,
> and, for my best arguments to develop, I need something to push
> against - without breaking it.  I think Brock isn't easy to break, and
> he may abide and not run.

I will do my best Birric, but you may have to put up with some rough
edges and even mistakes ... I make a bunch of them ... :)

>
> One of my requirements would be that we don't evade questions,
> especially not yes or no questions.  You can qualify your answer in
> the next paragraph, of course, but then you should always be ready for
> more questions.

I think of it slightly differently, and am convinced that "questions"
from some specific posters are of limited epistemological value,
because from those specific authors they generally aren't objections.

> The Ray Comfort interview may be a starting point.
>
> At base, I think, the opposing positions can be easily and succinctly
> stated:
>
> Brock:  Uniquely, the bible is divinely composed, and the very
> revelation of God.
>
> Birric:  Starting with the Big Bang, no event has ever been
> demonstrated that even came close to needing divine or supernatural
> intervention.

Sounds like a good start. Maybe these two should have their own
discussion thread ...

>
> If we're dogmatic, then there is nothing to talk about.  If we want to
> talk about support for our views, then I'm open to anything.
>
> Our views on morals and ethics are equally in stark opposition.  I am
> a militant anti-moralist and anti-ethicist.
>
> Morals and ethics, man- or god-based, have the function of beating
> people into shape according to some abstract and usually ill-defined
> principle.
>
> I do not deny that there are desirable and undesirable actions.  But
> the anti-moralist stance is, on the contrary, to beat the (hostile and
> certainly not fine-tuned) environment, as well as society, into a
> shape in which the prevailing incentives make desirable actions the
> more pleasurable choice.  Morality can have no role in that.
>
> I also firmly believe that there is no free will, and that that is a
> VERY good and desirable state of affairs.  Only if we all operate
> under the same laws of incentives and desires will it be possible to
> converge on a better society.  If we have free will, well, then it
> will never be possible to understand undesirable acts.  They are just
> evil or sinful and, being free, they can have no reason or
> explanation.

Lots of good positions to talk about here, Birric. Kudos!

> I am happily willing to lay out every aspect of my views and supply
> the supporting thoughts.

This looks promising! Thank you, Birric. :)

> On that basis, I would really be happy to engage in a candid
> discussion with Brock.  I also expect to raise some atheist opposition
> with my anti-moral views.
>

> Better explanations rule !

Amen! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.
>>
>> Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
>> positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
>> characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
>> contrasting positions.
>
> The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have,
> Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several
> outlandish stories. .

Ah, so Wally was polite, then. Well, I can commend such a politeness
to you. I'm not sure if you saw it through, but about ~7 mins or so
before the end of the film he lashes out quite distinctively at many
things Andre presented, and made good points, too.

>> >> Watch the program:  It is my judgement that all 3 persons are
>> >> genuinely, sincerely and honestly interacting with each other, and
>> >> trying to faithfully represent what they believe, and honestly
>> >> evaluate the other side's arguments and in good faith refute the other
>> >> side's positions.
>> >>
>> >> *sigh* … I'd like more of that here, please!
>> >
>> > I see this type of exchange here regularly, just not with you.
>>
>> I consider I do better than some assess.
>
> Of course you do, Brock 2000. That's the same kind of delusional thinking
> that permits you to be a Christian.

Or its the same kind of thinking that holds the objective nature of
reality to a higher standard than subjective aesthetic, or
human-centered verification.

Regards,

Brock

[Ian Betts]

Birric Brock has been asked to try to give us his reason for believing  the bible story but he has never done that as far as I can see. He comes back with bible passages that mean little unless you blindly follow the god idea.

--
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

[love&peace]

>"Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
calling us all sinful".

Christians consider the entire human community as one whole society,
and since what affects one part could affect the whole it isn't safe
to assume that children born in Mr x' s house are sinless because of
the parents' goodness. Because, they must grow up to contend with the
effects of other people's actions outside their own 'perfect' home
with the implication that they too might be tempted to sin in the
process. Therefore, the Christian ' presumptive' view on this is
proper. Those who have chosen to ignore Paul' s statement that "all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" might find this
explanation worthy of contemplation.

On May 10, 3:19 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Neil Kelsey]

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.
>>
>> Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
>> positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
>> characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
>> contrasting positions.
>
> The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have,
> Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several
> outlandish stories. .

Ah, so Wally was polite, then.

No, Wally doesn't represent my skepticism.Are you blind? 

 Well, I can commend such a politeness
to you.

How come it's okay for you to be rude but it's not okay for others, Brock 2000?

 

  I'm not sure if you saw it through, but about ~7 mins or so
before the end of the film he lashes out quite distinctively at many
things Andre presented, and made good points, too.

So you think lashing out is positive and agreeable? Then why are you complaining about the level of discourse here, Brock 2000?  

 

>> >> Watch the program:  It is my judgement that all 3 persons are
>> >> genuinely, sincerely and honestly interacting with each other, and
>> >> trying to faithfully represent what they believe, and honestly
>> >> evaluate the other side's arguments and in good faith refute the other
>> >> side's positions.
>> >>
>> >> *sigh* … I'd like more of that here, please!
>> >
>> > I see this type of exchange here regularly, just not with you.
>>
>> I consider I do better than some assess.
>
> Of course you do, Brock 2000. That's the same kind of delusional thinking
> that permits you to be a Christian.

Or its the same kind of thinking that holds the objective nature of
reality to a higher standard than subjective aesthetic, or
human-centered verification.

Nah, I was right the first time.  

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.
>> >>
>> >> Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
>> >> positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
>> >> characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
>> >> contrasting positions.
>> >
>> > The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have,
>> > Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several
>> > outlandish stories. .
>>
>> Ah, so Wally was polite, then.
>
> No, Wally doesn't represent my skepticism.Are you blind?

Just patient and careful to not define skepticism solely by how it
relates to you. :)

>>  Well, I can commend such a politeness
>> to you.
>
> How come it's okay for you to be rude but it's not okay for others, Brock
> 2000?

Well, I deny the premise that I am being rude. Watch the movie, Wally
is polite. He disagrees with Andre, in a very definite manner, and in
a way that doesn't cause strife or division or a frustrating end to
the dinner. *sigh* :)

>>   I'm not sure if you saw it through, but about ~7 mins or so
>> before the end of the film he lashes out quite distinctively at many
>> things Andre presented, and made good points, too.
>
> So you think lashing out is positive and agreeable?

Or just noting that Wally was, in fact, vigorously disagreeing yet
without being disagreeable. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:58:05 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.
>> >>
>> >> Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
>> >> positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
>> >> characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
>> >> contrasting positions.
>> >
>> > The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have,
>> > Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several
>> > outlandish stories. .
>>
>> Ah, so Wally was polite, then.
>
> No, Wally doesn't represent my skepticism.Are you blind?

Yes. 

That explains a lot, Brock 2000. 

 

>>  Well, I can commend such a politeness
>> to you.
>
> How come it's okay for you to be rude but it's not okay for others, Brock
> 2000?

Well, I'm sorry I am being rude.  Watch the movie, Wally
is polite.

You said he "lashed out." Do you think "lashing out" is polite? 

 

  He disagrees with Andre, in a very definite manner, and in
a way that doesn't cause strife or division or a frustrating end to
the dinner. *sigh* 

"Lashing out" causes strife, division, and often a frustrating end to a dinner. 

>>   I'm not sure if you saw it through, but about ~7 mins or so
>> before the end of the film he lashes out quite distinctively at many
>> things Andre presented, and made good points, too.
>
> So you think lashing out is positive and agreeable?

Yes. I also think God is infinitely good and he tortures people for eternity. That's why I love him so. La la la, I love you God, you're so edifying I could eat you, la la la.

Get a room, Brock 2000. 

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:58:05 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had
>> >> >> > any.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
>> >> >> positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
>> >> >> characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
>> >> >> contrasting positions.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I
>> >> > have,
>> >> > Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several
>> >> > outlandish stories. .
>> >>
>> >> Ah, so Wally was polite, then.
>> >
>> > No, Wally doesn't represent my skepticism.Are you blind?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> That explains a lot, Brock 2000.

More accurately:

Neil: The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.
Brock: Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.
Neil: The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have,
Brock: Ah, so Wally was polite, then.  Well, I can commend such a
politeness to you.
Neil: No, Wally doesn't represent my skepticism.Are you blind?
Brock: Just patient and careful to not define skepticism solely by

how it relates to you. :)

:)

>> Well, I'm sorry I am being rude.  Watch the movie, Wally
>> is polite.
>
>
> You said he "lashed out." Do you think "lashing out" is polite?

Merely:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descriptive

>>   He disagrees with Andre, in a very definite manner, and in
>> a way that doesn't cause strife or division or a frustrating end to
>> the dinner. *sigh*
>
> "Lashing out" causes strife, division, and often a frustrating end to a
> dinner.

Not in this movie. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:47:05 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 10, 2012 5:58:05 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:41:28 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had
>> >> >> > any.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, watching the movie, I consider he did that very thing.  In a
>> >> >> positive, agreeable way, he called several of Andre's
>> >> >> characterizations out and flat out rejected them, offering his
>> >> >> contrasting positions.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I
>> >> > have,
>> >> > Brock 2000. He remained silent(or nodded in agreement) during several
>> >> > outlandish stories. .
>> >>
>> >> Ah, so Wally was polite, then.
>> >
>> > No, Wally doesn't represent my skepticism.Are you blind?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> That explains a lot, Brock 2000.

I've decided to become an atheist

Wow! Brock 2000, I hope it works out well for you. 

 

Neil:  The Wally Shawn character didn't voice his skepticism, if he had any.

Brock:  Well, watching the movie, I farted a lot.

Neil:  The Wally Shawn character doesn't represent the skepticism that I have,

Brock:  Ah, so.  Well, now watch me tap dance and fart 
Neil:  Good for you, Brock 2000! 
Brock: tippety tappety tippety tappety.   

>> Well, I'm sorry I am being rude.  Watch the movie, Wally
>> is polite.
>
>
> You said he "lashed out." Do you think "lashing out" is polite?

Oops! It's time for me to say something irrelevant again:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/descriptive

Yes, Brock 2000, that is irrelevant. Have a biscuit. 

 

>>   He disagrees with Andre, in a very definite manner, and in
>> a way that doesn't cause strife or division or a frustrating end to
>> the dinner. *sigh*
>
> "Lashing out" causes strife, division, and often a frustrating end to a
> dinner.

I live in a fantasy world full of fluffy bunnies and magic rainbows

Maybe someday when you grow up you will become a Transformer, Brock 2000.

 

Regards,

Brock 2000 

[Brock Organ]

Maybe someday when I grow up I will have a dialogue with myself and
pretend it is the OP ... one can only hope! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Steve in Virginia]

No Brock, you've missed the boat once again. What atheist don't like
is being told that some ancient middle eastern mythology is fact. Nor
do atheists have any particular appreciation towards a philosophy that
demand unwavering compliance under the threat of eternal torture.
What we atheist find offensive (not to mention utterly insane) is the
filthy, dehumanizing and miserable christian position that we have am
inherent bias towards evil, because talking snake told an imaginary
character in a Bronze Age fairy tale to eat some magic fruit. And as
for that doctrine you cling to with such neurotic glee, it was
fabricated over 8 centuries by Byzantine and Medieval clerics, as
greedy,selfish, psychotic and power mad as the emperors, kings,
princes and warlords they sucked up to in order to control the great
masses of people living in ignorance, disease, abject poverty and
squalor.

I don't expect anything written here will have the slightest impact on
vile, misogynist, delusional and cruel beliefs spewed across the
bible. Anymore than any rational man or woman could convince a hard
core Elvis groupie that their hero is dead and buried in a grave in
Tennessee, or that there is no Mother Ship coming to whisk the UFO
True Believers off to Tatooine, or Oz or Andromeda.

And if there is intolerance then it is due to the self-aggrandizing,
hateful ego maniacs who incessantly squawk about their piety,
selflessness, humility and self-righteous moral superiority. People
who are of such meanness of spirit and poverty of character they
resent the intelligence and inquisitiveness of those who would so much
a question any part of the christian mythos. The same people who
pronounce that unbelievers will be cast into eternal hellfire with the
same gusto one announces they won $100 dollars in a lottery. That's
what atheist find unsettling, not the imaginary eternal retribution of
hell, or a god that, at best acts like a petulant grade schooler and
on a bad day a murdering, genocidal psychopath.

Isn't it strange that the god of the bible acts exactly like some
ruthless, capricious, despotic ancient tyrant? No you wouldn't - and
the sad part that says more about the traumatized mind of the
believer, than what my non-belief says about me.

Steve

On May 10, 9:59 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brock I will just make two comments.
>
> > Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
> > notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.
>
> Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
> perceived as "nice" by non-believers.   I've considered carefully for
> years that folks like you and others don't like being told that
> without Christ you face eternal hell.  It is very offensive and unfair
> to some to be confronted with the idea that rather than being neutral
> or basically good, people have a character with an inherent bias to
> evil.
>

> But that doesn't make the doctrines of sin and eternal judgment any
> less true, or the need for salvation any less great. :(
>
> So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
> like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
> labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
> Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
> and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
> statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?
>

> My anecdotal experience here on AvC is that some posters simply aren't
> able to interact with folks who offer a different view from them
> without cursing, invective and vituperation.  Anything rather than
> calmly face a hard soul-searching and scripture searching discussion
> about humankind's sinful nature, and its implications on our behavior,
> and moral and ethical issues.
>

> I think I do a pretty good job of disagreeing without being
> disagreeable, but in a lot of cases non-believers simply tie being
> "honest" or "nice" or having "integrity" as some other subjective
> approval that means first agreeing to start from their presupposed
> positions regarding the nature of reality (such as the "I'm basically
> a good person" fallacy).  But that isn't something I believe can be
> supported, and I say so.  Nicely.  Honestly.  And, with the Lord's
> grace, I pray with integrity. :)
>

[Ian Betts]

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM, love&peace <willi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
calling us all sinful".

Christians consider the entire human community as one whole society,
and since what affects one part could affect the whole it isn't safe
to assume that children born in Mr x' s house are sinless because of
the parents' goodness. Because, they must grow up to contend with the
effects of other people's actions outside their own 'perfect' home
with the implication that they too might be tempted to sin in the
process. Therefore, the Christian ' presumptive' view on this is
proper. Those who have chosen to ignore Paul' s statement that "all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"  might find this
explanation worthy of contemplation.

Paul was a bad boy conversion and like smokers who give up he became a real campaigner to say everyone but him are sinners. Try taking that story from the time it was written not as a literal thing.You God onl;y influence you because you want it to not because the thing really exists.

--
Ian

[Birric Forcella]

To Brock:

Well, let's start with this question: What do you know, and how do
you know it. It's not enough to just say that you know. No matter
how sure your knowledge, how did you come by it - and what exactly
does it contain.

In return, I will answer for you any question you may have about
evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, or the workings of the natural
world, including the mind, Einstein, quantum physics, or
interconnectivity, which are special areas of interest for me - though
I am not a physicist.

As an example, let's examine the Ray Comfort interview.

Comfort says had a conversion "more real than his life." He says: "I
know god. I've known god since 1972, 25th of April 1:30 in the
morning." (31 min 12 sec into the interview)

Apparently, at that time god talked to him and made himself known to
dear old Ray.

The problem is, experiences like that are common like ragweed.
Moslems have them, Hindus, Mormons and lots more. All are taken as
proof for a specific view of god.

Worse yet, Comfort cannot explain why he may not be deceived. He
admits there are false conversions and fake pastors Comfort confesses
he can't even tell who is is true Christian.

Then there are the ones who do Comfort one better. Pat Robertson
speaks to god all the time. So do many evangelists.

And then there is Mary. She is quite a chatterbox. And assorted
saints just won't shut up. Add to that angels, appearances of dear
departed, ghosts, Popes ex cathedra, and the occasional demon - well,
the din from the other side is just deafening.

They can't all be right. They all tell you to check the Bible or some
other holy book to confirm what they say . . .

But Ray Comfort has a second problem which is at least as serious.
What exactly did god say to him, and what did it mean?

With exactly this thing in mind, on May 6th I started in here a thread
that profiles a friend of mine who claims to have heard god about 10
years ago - and who has since religiously adhered to every word god
told him. He takes god exactly by his word and beyond that specific
command nothing in his life has changed, not even his atheism.

A Case of a God-Believing Atheist

In the discussion Comfort tells us that god spoke to him exactly at
1:30am. I have ploughed through hundreds of hits for Ray Comfort. I
found nothing specific about his visitation If anybody could supply
the exact details and words of god, I would appreciate it.

At any rate. God must have spoken to him for many, many hours going
through the whole Bible. 1:30am just doesn't sound right. If he had
said "god talked to me all night" I might have more confidence. The
reason for that is obvious. Comfort has little trouble denying the
truth of various parts of the Bible (including the age of the earth)
and takes much metaphorically. In other regards he says "this is
absolute truth."

"There is a lot of things in the Bible I don't agree with" (42 min, 45
sec into the discussion.

Unless god told him exactly chapter and verse where he can believe,
doubt, and deny - by what authority does he believe, doubt, or deny?
Maybe Comfort would tell us that god said the Bible is true. But
since he denies and freely interprets parts of the Bible - clearly
that statement of god would not be enough. Maybe god told him "I am
your savior." - then why would that prove anything in the OT or NT
except what these words imply. Did god also tell him about things NOT
in the Bible? Like abortion? God had unborn babies killed (women who
had known a man). Did god tell him he had changed his mind?

So, as long as Comfort talks about 1:30am, I don't think anything much
about the Bible is proven - even if we were to concede that god talked
to Ray.

What exactly did god say to Comfort?

Mutatis mutandis, Brock - did god ever talk to you? And what did he
say? For what exact reasons are your claims warranted - and by what?

[Ian Betts]

Birric if people want to see how indoctrination works the need to read this site.

http://www.seegod.org/2010/12/hearing-god/ 

I do believe it the way Thea works her belief system. 

--
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

[Steve in Virginia]

There is no objective "truth" that humankind is evil, that is what you
wish to believe because a book written during the Bronze Age said so.
Isn't it odd the the entire hinge pin of christianity demands that
humanity be inherently evil. If not the entire story collapses. No
sin in Genesis and everything from the canonical gospels thru the
ergot-fungus fueled ranting of the Apocalypse become moot.

Such a sad, pathetic small-minded view of humanity and the universe.

Steve




On May 10, 2:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Neil Kelsey]

Maybe someday when I grow up I will stop editing other people's posts ... one can only hope!

Amen to that, Brock 2000.

[Trance Gemini]

Haha!

--

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

Freethinkers and atheists Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Steve in Virginia
<resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Brock, you've missed the boat once again. What atheist don't like
> is being told that some ancient middle eastern mythology is fact.

But, to the degree that it is objectively true, I consider the
preference to "not like it" to not be virtuous.

> What we atheist find offensive (not to mention utterly insane)  is the
> filthy, dehumanizing and miserable christian position that we have am
> inherent bias towards evil,

Well, like it or not, it is objectively true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJccOedwHT0

I don't present the position simply because I enjoy being offensive,
but because the need for a perspicuity of truth is so very great. For
an example, a man breaks into a house, murders a 70+ year old woman
sleeping in her bed, stabbing her dozens of times with a screwdriver;
when caught and questioned by police, he admits to the killing, but
insists "I am not a bad person" (my paraphrase).

For another example, two men grab a young woman in a grocery store
parking lot, kidnap her and her baby, force her to withdraw money
from her bank card, then they take her and the baby to a remote
location where they kill the mother and leave the baby for dead.
Caught, questioned by the police, and presented with the forensic
evidence one of the killers unrepentantly indicates "I don't know what
you are talking about" (my paraphrase).

Two youths enter and steal a bait car left by police, and are caught
gloating and laughing about the theft on a hidden video camera.
Later, when apprehended, they deny the theft, and offer that they were
just helpfully moving the car for a cousin.

Sorry if you find these examples of the objective truth of sinful
human nature offensive, but they are true and need to be dealt with
for what they are. Now, I note it is true that as far as we all know,
neither you nor I have done similar crimes, but when I examine my
character, conduct and speech against the divine moral standard, I
learn that I have all of the same kinds of evil present, even if such
evil is not actively being displayed. :)

> Isn't it strange that the god of the bible acts exactly like some
> ruthless, capricious, despotic ancient tyrant?  No you wouldn't - and
> the sad part that says more about the traumatized mind of the
> believer, than what my non-belief says about me.

Well, I don't agree with your assessment of God, and note that He is
instead of a high, noble and exalted character. He is right to
government-ally administer His creation, and an excellent judge. But,
of course, He is more than that, and has graciously offered mercy and
pardon to people who only deserve the penalty of justice, like people
who murder, steal, lie, cheat, deceive and have every kind of
wickedness in their character.

Hallelujah! What a Savior!

Regards,

Brock

[Marc]

Brock on numerous occasions you claim to seek polite interaction...
but I remain skeptical of this (given my reading of your numerous
posts with others and responses to my questions).

To begin you cite the Bible as evidence for God.
This is fine, no problem.

But what then happens, in a meaningful search for truth, is an
evaluation of the evidence.
The bible is insufficient on two fronts:
1) The proposed evidence is not grounded in careful empirical
observation of the universe (the one including us).
2) If the God within the texts where real then he would not be worthy
of trust/faith; he is a cruel and petty dick.

So here is where it stands between us:

Your propose the bible as evidence of God and his grace.
I have a copy of that collection of texts (KJV), and on reading it
have found in it nothing that reflects any truth.
Well... beyond the truth that the God of Abraham, as an entity spoken
of within the bible, is a petty dick.

Here you will suggest that 'I' am not the criteria for what is of
importance, fact, or worth.

So what then is the criteria for determining something has importance,
worth, or is fact?
Should I: *simply* read the bible, with ONLY acceptance in my heart?
Also, in all moments that I find the bible does not match up with the
world, reality, and/ or human nature; I must *merely* chastise myself
for being wrong? When the world and the bible do not align MUST I
always tell myself that it is my fault - and not the fault of the
Bible? You are more than welcome to dismiss these as loaded questions
(as you dismiss all my questions in some or other way). At some point
to have a conversation you have to accept another person into it.

Anyway how should I read the Bible? I have read it as seriously as I
am able, in an attempt to discover truth (beyond my own ego), and am
now an atheist. Has God hardened my heart to his existence?

If reality only offers, as evidence for God, the Bible then atheist I
will remain. If you did convince me that God (of the Bible) was real
then I would become an apostate and preach rebellion; for the only
noble, true, just, and good thing that could be done to the God of
Abraham is to kill him - and if impossible then to try. It is not a
deity worthy of worship.

Yes, you have a contrasting view and what is at stake is the reasoning
behind that view.

You wish me to come to yours; well... I do read the bible, have done
so in the past (was brought up Catholic), and will do so in the
future; and upon every reading the idea of the contents therein being
more than mythology becomes evermore ridiculous.

I accept nothing I am a skeptic. The only path that requires things be
taken without assumptions is the Aristotelian empiricism. Start with
the world and work from there - the world, the one including the
bible, does not lead to the conclusion that the Christian (or any
other) God is an actual entity that exists separately from being a
product of human imagination and writing.

I ask in all seriousness:

Why should the bible be taken 'seriously' as evidence?
How should the bible be read, give that I have read it and conclude,
God is not real and if real is a petty dick?

Now I have an actual position. I have always tried to be clear about
it, and you have not responded to it.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Birric Forcella <erni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> To Brock:
>
> Well, let's start with this question:  What do you know, and how do
> you know it.  It's not enough to just say that you know.  No matter
> how sure your knowledge, how did you come by it - and what exactly
> does it contain.

Hi Birric,

I consider the question not so simple. Here's what I said to LL
earlier in response to her inquiry:

> I guess we'll have to rephrase. What makes you
> think the god you believe exists is as you present him?

I don't think there is a "what" so much as a "who".

When people ask such a "what" (or "how") they are typically interested
in mechanism, like "what makes you think you see trees in your front
yard?" or "how do you know how high the grass in your yard is?" ...
the typical expected answer is some sort of delving into the workings
of the human eye, with maybe a reference to how those sensations are
possibly assembled in the brain into images with semantic content,
etc. ...

or perhaps they are less interested in mechanism, and more interested
in algorithm, process or sequence of logical deductions, like "what
makes you think the fundamental theorem of calculus is applicable
here?" or "can we justify reducing a more complex problem into a
simpler problem?"...

BUT, ask a question where there is no formal demonstration of
mechanism easily available, or algorithm, process or sequence of
logical deduction, and one steps into deeper epistemological waters.
:)

And so we have here. I think the most responsible answer I can give,
is to make clear the inadequacies of appeals to mechanism and
algorithm, and directly give the credit for my understanding to God
Himself:

"People should be moved and induced to a high and reverent esteem of
the Bible. It speaks of heavenly matters, provides efficient and
specific doctrines, has a majesty of style, a consent of all its
parts, and has a scope of its whole that gives glory to God. It makes
a full discovery of the only way for humankind's salvation. It offers
many normative truths, excellent beyond compare and is entirely
perfect for God's planned purpose.

External observations and measurements of its qualities, such as the
above, can and do give evidence that the Bible is the very word of
God. However, it is the testimony of God's Holy Spirit in human hearts
and minds that bears full persuasion and assurance."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek

> In return, I will answer for you any question you may have about
> evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, or the workings of the natural
> world, including the mind, Einstein, quantum physics, or
> interconnectivity, which are special areas of interest for me - though
> I am not a physicist.

Thanks for your gracious offer. My question is simple:

If you reject the bible, what "smoking gun" specific objective fact or
issue caused you to reject it?

> As an example, let's examine the Ray Comfort interview.
>
> Comfort says had a conversion "more real than his life."  He says:  "I
> know god.  I've known god since 1972, 25th of April 1:30 in the
> morning."  (31 min 12 sec into the interview)
>
> Apparently, at that time god talked to him and made himself known to
> dear old Ray.
>
> The problem is, experiences like that are common like ragweed.
> Moslems have them, Hindus, Mormons and lots more.  All are taken as
> proof for a specific view of god.

Well, to the degree that the other experiences are independent of
Ray's, I don't agree that the falsity of the others disqualify the
truth of Ray's. Or, as I've said before, the existence of the
counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine.

I heard it just yesterday on a google+ hangout "I reject all religions
because they can't all be true" (my paraphrase) ... Well, I agree,
that they can't all be true, but that doesn't mean that one of them
isn't true. :)

> Worse yet, Comfort cannot explain why he may not be deceived.  He
> admits there are false conversions and fake pastors  Comfort confesses
> he can't even tell who is is true Christian.

Well, what is so bad about that? No one need be able to explain a
position to hold a position, nor for the position to be true. For
example, here is atheist Robert Ingersoll, rejecting God, yet unable
to answer even a "simple" question:

"What is matter? i confess I can't tell. I take a handful of earth,
and in it I plant a seed, and the arrows of light from the sun fall
upon it, and the dews moisten it, a little green shaft appears, and
then a bud, and then a flower. I know all this, but I do not know
what causes it, any more than I know the origin of thought"

http://tinyurl.com/78dt5hn

Even after 2500+ years of history, human philosophy still struggles
with even basic questions regarding being, ethics, the nature of
knowledge, and motion, etc.

> They can't all be right.  They all tell you to check the Bible or some
> other holy book to confirm what they say . . .

I agree, not all religious claims are true. But that doesn't
therefore imply that none of them are. :)

> But Ray Comfort has a second problem which is at least as serious.
> What exactly did god say to him, and what did it mean?

Well, you'd need to ask Ray, I won't claim to speak for him. :)

> A Case of a God-Believing Atheist
>
> In the discussion Comfort tells us that god spoke to him exactly at
> 1:30am.  I have ploughed through hundreds of hits for Ray Comfort.  I
> found nothing specific about his visitation  If anybody could supply
> the exact details and words of god, I would appreciate it.
>
> At any rate.  God must have spoken to him for many, many hours going
> through the whole Bible.  1:30am just doesn't sound right.  If he had
> said "god talked to me all night" I might have more confidence.  The
> reason for that is obvious.  Comfort has little trouble denying the
> truth of various parts of the Bible (including the age of the earth)
> and takes much metaphorically.  In other regards he says "this is
> absolute truth."
>
> "There is a lot of things in the Bible I don't agree with" (42 min, 45
> sec into the discussion.
>
> Unless god told him exactly chapter and verse where he can believe,
> doubt, and deny - by what authority does he believe, doubt, or deny?
> Maybe Comfort would tell us that god said the Bible is true.  But
> since he denies and freely interprets parts of the Bible - clearly
> that statement of god would not be enough.  Maybe god told him "I am
> your savior." - then why would that prove anything in the OT or NT
> except what these words imply.  Did god also tell him about things NOT
> in the Bible?  Like abortion?  God had unborn babies killed (women who
> had known a man).  Did god tell him he had changed his mind?

Good questions, and legitimate ones. Unfortunately, I can't speak for
Ray, so I can't help you with an answer.

> What exactly did god say to Comfort?

Again, I don't speak for Ray, so I can't help you with an answer.

> Mutatis mutandis, Brock - did god ever talk to you?  And what did he
> say?

Well, I'd like to make a distinction in your question. I am not a
pantheist. No "god" has ever spoken to me. :)

However, as a Christian, I do wish to testify that the high and holy
living God has spoken to me personally[1]! :)

And fortunately I can give you a reliable transcript, here's what He said:

http://bible.cc

[1] more specifically I hold to the position that the bible is "verbal
plenary inspired in its original autographs" -
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html

>
> Birric Forcella
>
> Better explanations rule !

Amen! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On May 11, 6:26 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Steve in Virginia
>

> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No Brock, you've missed the boat once again. What atheist don't like
> > is being told that some ancient middle eastern mythology is fact.
>
> But, to the degree that it is objectively true, I consider the
> preference to "not like it" to not be virtuous.

Since you believe that known falsehoods are objectively true, your
considerations are worthless.

- Bob T

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Steve in Virginia
<resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no objective "truth" that humankind is evil, that is what you

> wish to believe ...

> Such a sad, pathetic small-minded view of humanity and the universe.

I don't consider your accusation credible: I am as inconvenienced by
the truth of humankind's wickedness as are you. I face injustice,
inequities, sufferings, natural tragedies and even death on a daily
basis, as does all of humankind without distinction. But I am happy
to share that God has a plan in motion that will deal with such evil,
and will restore me to a clean and wholesome relationship with Him.
That is good news worth sharing! :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe someday when I grow up I will stop editing other people's posts ...
>> one can only hope!
>
> Amen to that, Brock 2000.

I was being facetious, though. Having excellent position, I find it
not necessary, expedient or commendable to put words into an
opponent's mouth. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On May 11, 7:23 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Maybe someday when I grow up I will stop editing other people's posts ...
> >> one can only hope!
>
> > Amen to that, Brock 2000.
>

> I put words into an opponent's mouth. :)

Yes, but you only do that when snipping their posts isn't misleading
enough.

- Bob T
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Answer_42]

On May 10, 6:07 pm, Birric Forcella <erniec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re:  Brock
>
> I may come to regret this, but perhaps it's worth the attempt.

Yes you will.

> I've read a lot of posts by Brock, and I think he doesn't deserve all
> the invectives heaped on him.

Oh, he does...

> I have followed this group for a long
> time and have read many of his posts.  He is often quite thoughtful.

Yes, however, being thoughtful in his attempts at evading questions
and dodging uncomfortable facts is exactly why he deserves the
invective he gets. This kind of thoughtfulness we can do without.
Not only is he according to his claims, convinced of the truth of the
bible, he is also convinced that he knows the motives behind every
single question he gets. This is his lame excuse for not answering
simple yes/no questions... He usually claims he knows the question was
not asked in goof faith or that it is not epistemologically sound, so
he dodges and weaves and pisses everyone off, especially those who try
to engage him seriously,as I have, and as Neil, Bob T., Trance and
many others before have tried.

Case in point, about two years ago I simply tried to get him to
acknowledge that sometimes he makes mistakes and may be wrong when
uttering his claims. He could never bring himself to admit that he
might, on occasions, be wrong. Yet, I read in his reply to you that he
claims that sometimes he makes mistakes, even many of them. So, now he
freely admits, without being asked, that he can be wrong, and often as
well; yet when I asked him two years ago he could not just agree with
me and move on?

So, we all ignore him now, well, most of the time... some of us tend
to forget and have brief relapses...


Good luck to you, but soon enough you will have wished that you had
taken a running start of about 100 meters and smashed your own head
against a brick wall instead of having tried to earnestly engage
Brock.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 7:23:22 AM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe someday when I grow up I will stop editing other people's posts ...
>> one can only hope!
>
> Amen to that, Brock 2000.

I was being a dick, though.  Having an untenable position, I find it
necessary, expedient and commendable to put words into an
opponent's mouth.

Regards,

Brock 2000

I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.  

[Marc]

On May 11, 4:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Steve in Virginia
>

Hmm... alright this last few posts from you are slightly more
illuminating than I found all of the previous I have encountered.

Look as I mentioned before. I wish the world was one in which there
was a moral absolute, such as found in a notion of sin (although some
of the content of what counts as 'moral' within Christianity is
petty). The obvious ones, i.e. like do not murder, do not steal, do
not rape, and be honest, are good but not original to Christianity.
But the fact of the matter is that I am an atheist and as a result
think the world and the nature of man to be indifferent to our little
sufferings, slights, and wrongs. Indeed the very idea that such minor
acts would matter at all, given the scale of the universe is simply
hubris - the arrogance of the idea that what you do 'matters' on some
grand and cosmic sense is plain staggering. Given the vastness of the
universe, the indifference of nature to suffering/ prospering, and the
fallibility of the faculty of judgment - the idea that we are
'special' for any reason is nonsensical. The only thing that 'fits'
given all our failings as individuals within a species is that nothing
cares about us, but us. God is an extension of the all too human ego:
'we are so important' that we fit especially into the grand scheme of
a cosmic level superpower, and all of our petty little moments of poor
judgment, indecision, good, and bad MATTER to God. This thought likely
falls within the realm of ideas that arise from the 'fallibility of
the faculty of judgment' - i.e. the one that suggests what we do
matters.

The sad fact (as demonstrated by the world) is all we got is 'em
fallible faculties and an indifferent life, the universe, and
everything else. At the end of it - I understand this is unpleasant -
no one will tell you whether or not you did a good job with life. What
awaits is not judgement but nothing; and therefore, yes, it does not
ULTIMATELY matter. Hitler and the bad people you describe are not
going to 'get what is coming to them'; nor are they (we, or anyone
else) going to get what they (we, or anyone else) deserve. The bad
done, being done, and that will be done, as well as the good we done,
being done, and will be done; all of it only matters to us. Some
Christians refer to this idea as hubris; frankly, I have never seen
why given our obvious cosmic insignificance and fallibility. Existence
is cold, hard, and unforgiving if you are alone, make note of the
unforgiving. Nothing can forgive you, or me, or anyone... we are alone
in our disgrace.

The universe, life, and everything else just doesn't give a damn - the
stories in which it does have far more appeal (and on this front I do
wish I was still Christian), but they are stories you tell children to
illicit the kind of behaviour some of us (in all our fallible,
mundane, and ungraceful being) hope is better. I wish there was some
pure method by which I could know that my, and/ or our way of being is
better than that of the ancient Greeks, or our early ancestors, or our
current neighborhood of religions, mores, philosophies, and other
inconsequential ideals was correct - but there is not. The
responsibility for our actions fall overwhelmingly onto our shoulders;
the is no God to hold your hand and tell you that despite all your
failings it is gracefully alright.

The most difficult questions in philosophy (re: ethics, purpose,
being) are unanswered precisely because we are fallible and there is
no method that exists separate and distinct that our fallible
judgement that is going to help us answer them. 'God' is a convenient
scapegoat for our fallible nature. In it we narrate into existence an
infallible being to tell us what to do because otherwise we are
swimming in uncertainty... but we ARE swimming in uncertainty with
respect to the questions of good and evil. I know why you want God, I
want God for the same reasons, however, strong there is no god. The
best we can hope for is to become what the ideal we imagine and hope
to discover some meaning in that. If for a moment I believed that
there was even a remote, but significant, possibility that an all-
good, all-knowing force that provided solace and certainty actually
existed I would be following it always. The only guiding light yet
remains the all too dim light of human judgement. Wishing more,
praying more, speaking of more, writing of more, talking about more,
describing more in confessions, claiming the reality of more, and not
understanding more; simply does not make 'more' exist. I have looked
into the void and shuddered, but there is nothing more to it...

I can offer you only this world.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Marc <mjhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock on numerous occasions you claim to seek polite interaction...
> but I remain skeptical of this (given my reading of your numerous
> posts with others and responses to my questions).

That's ok, I can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. :)

> To begin you cite the Bible as evidence for God.
> This is fine, no problem.
>
> But what then happens, in a meaningful search for truth, is an
> evaluation of the evidence.

I agree that between the states of "evidence" and "proof" lies the
process of "evaluation".

> The bible is insufficient on two fronts:
> 1) The proposed evidence is not grounded in careful empirical
> observation of the universe (the one including us).

Well, to rebut 1), one only need note that as empirical standards fail
to be adequate epistemological standards, so that the bible does (or
does not) conform to them doesn't make the bible insufficient, only
empiricism itself.

> 2) If the God within the texts where real then he would not be worthy

> of trust/faith; he is a cruel and petty <profanity>.

I disagree, the bible indicates God is a holy and high being of every
kind of moral and ethical excellence. :)

> So here is where it stands between us:
>
> Your propose the bible as evidence of God and his grace.
> I have a copy of that collection of texts (KJV), and on reading it
> have found in it nothing that reflects any truth.

I have read the same text and concluded differently.

> Well... beyond the truth that the God of Abraham, as an entity spoken

> of within the bible, is a petty <profanity>.

>
> Here you will suggest that 'I' am not the criteria for what is of
> importance, fact, or worth.

Or more simply offer that the pejorative is not in regards to God, but
is instead in our human process of evaluation ... For example, two
different district attorneys, when presented with the evidence of a
crime, can legitimately go in different directions. One can review
the material, evaluate it and choose to indict and prosecute, while
another might review the exact same material, evaluate the case and
not indict!

So the pejorative is not that God is profane, but that our evaluation
and/or assessments of Him and of the objective nature of reality are
very often profane!

> So what then is the criteria for determining something has importance,
> worth, or is fact?

Great question. This is one of the foundational questions of the
science of epistemology. So, while I am happy to provide the "best"
answers I can, I provide them humbly understanding the issues are not
simple, and recognizing the danger of over-simplification.

Maybe this question should have its own thread ... :)

> Should I: *simply* read the bible, with ONLY acceptance in my heart?
> Also, in all moments that I find the bible does not match up with the
> world, reality, and/ or human nature; I must *merely* chastise myself
> for being wrong? When the world and the bible do not align MUST I
> always tell myself that it is my fault - and not the fault of the
> Bible?

See my answers below, and feel free to follow up if you don't like them.

> You are more than welcome to dismiss these as loaded questions
> (as you dismiss all my questions in some or other way). At some point
> to have a conversation you have to accept another person into it.

Well, I am careful to distinguish between presuppositions that I do
not accept, and loaded and emotive accusations that aren't much more
than a verbal whack with a stick.

> Anyway how should I read the Bible? I have read it as seriously as I
> am able, in an attempt to discover truth (beyond my own ego), and am
> now an atheist. Has God hardened my heart to his existence?

Well, first let me say that I believe you. I am not trying to
minimize your legitimate efforts. :)

Can I share something personal with you, at the risk of embarrassment?
I have been studying a subject (the lambda calculus) for 20 years,
and the seminal book on the subject still beats me up, hurts my brain,
and despite my best efforts I am still a student frustrated that I
don't learn the subject faster:

http://mathgate.info/cebrown/notes/barendregt.php

No one can offer me a guarantee that if I only read "just the right
part" I will attain the knowledge I seek. Few people can even offer
me help on the topic (though Rupert once offered to his help, which I
evaluated to be nothing more than an opportunity to mock and ridicule
on his part), and those that do can get frustrated that I am unable to
reproduce their learning experience and that their help doesn't work
for me.

Well, the same problem someone has learning the lambda calculus can
illustrate that acquiring knowledge in general is not just a matter of
algorithm, process or mechanism. And that learning from the bible is
no different in that regard.

Some people read the bible one time, and accept Christ as Lord and
Savior! Others never read it, hear a synopsis of the gospel from a
friend or pastor, and accept Christ as Lord! Others read it several
times, get frustrated and give up not receiving Christ. Some people
read it their whole lives, go to seminary, get an advanced degree,
become a professor of theology, and never receive Christ! Others read
it each and every day of their lives, and find it to be the very
"pearl of great price"! :)

I think understanding this is humbling to the human spirit. The
buoyant spirit of humanistic optimism that naively thinks "gosh, I can
learn anything easily" is humbled. The objective nature of reality is
in a large degree opaque to us, even "simple" truths we can often find
are beyond easy explanation. An atheist reflected the same thing when
he noted:

"What is matter? i confess I can't tell. I take a handful of earth,
and in it I plant a seed, and the arrows of light from the sun fall
upon it, and the dews moisten it, a little green shaft appears, and
then a bud, and then a flower. I know all this, but I do not know
what causes it, any more than I know the origin of thought"

So, how does this help you?! Well, in regards to giving you an answer
that says "do this, that and the other thing and I guarantee you will
have the knowledge you seek" I cannot so answer, anymore than someone
could guarantee if I just do X, then Y, then Z that I will then
understand the lambda calculus. But what I do have, I share:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/9.htm

So my first questions, in response to your legitimate queries about
reading the bible and not "getting it":

* do you believe you have "the fear of the Lord"?
* how important of an issue do you perceive these studies?
- only entertaining?
- only good for getting a laugh at the expense of those Christian "nutters"?
- mildly important, but then again, so are many other things?
- pretty important, but so are other things?
- THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE AFFECTING ME FOR ALL ETERNITY (<--
that's my answer)

Maybe talking with me more about it is helpful. I hope so, and don't
mean to frustrate legitimate inquiry.

> If reality only offers, as evidence for God, the Bible then atheist I
> will remain. If you did convince me that God (of the Bible) was real
> then I would become an apostate and preach rebellion; for the only
> noble, true, just, and good thing that could be done to the God of
> Abraham is to kill him - and if impossible then to try. It is not a
> deity worthy of worship.

I disagree, Marc, and consider Him to be of the highest and most
excellent moral nature.

> Yes, you have a contrasting view and what is at stake is the reasoning
> behind that view.
>
> You wish me to come to yours; well... I do read the bible, have done
> so in the past (was brought up Catholic), and will do so in the
> future; and upon every reading the idea of the contents therein being
> more than mythology becomes evermore ridiculous.
>
> I accept nothing I am a skeptic. The only path that requires things be
> taken without assumptions is the Aristotelian empiricism. Start with
> the world and work from there - the world, the one including the
> bible, does not lead to the conclusion that the Christian (or any
> other) God is an actual entity that exists separately from being a
> product of human imagination and writing.

Ok, but understand that choosing untenable constraints could be one of
your problems. Someone might say "start only with a bicycle and $20
and give me a route to bike that gets me from Houston, TX to Paris
France" ... but there is no such route. :)

You don't get to determine the pre-conditions of a successful journey.
You don't get to demand that the objective nature of reality fit into
your presuppositions or preconceptions. Nor do I. :)

If you start with empiricism, you start with a flawed inadequate constraint.
If you start with skepticism, you start with a flawed inadequate constraint.

I think you will find serious inquiry humbling, and from a humanistic
perspective unsatisfiable. But this doesn't mean God does not exist,
only that He is not deducible from a core set of logical propositions
of your own choosing. :)

I believe I don't get to choose either, but I do consider God has
shared all that is needed for salvation in the text of the bible, and
that the very first step is to realize:

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/9.htm

> I ask in all seriousness:
>
> Why should the bible be taken 'seriously' as evidence?

I just offer that your eternal destiny depends upon it. Get it wrong
and face divine judgement. Forever. Get it right and receive pardon,
forgiveness and an eternal blessedness. That's pretty high stakes and
motivation to "get it right". :)

> How should the bible be read, give that I have read it and conclude,

> God is not real and if real is a petty <profanity>?

Well, I'm glad that you are talking with me. Would you say that you
have prayed with God? I pray lots and lots to Him, and consider it to
be a prime benefit He offers. Pray to God, tell Him just what you
think of Him. Hold back nothing, pull no punches, ask Him to respond.
He's a big boy, and can take any puny heat you have to offer Him.
Then see if perhaps afterwards your bible reading takes on a different
quality. :)

Again, I'm not offering an algorithm to you, or a process, just
sharing steps that have been a part of my walk with the Lord.

> Now I have an actual position. I have always tried to be clear about
> it, and you have not responded to it.

I've done better than that, and do better than that above. :)

Best Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

Or just disagree on the evaluation for such falsehoods. In
particular, that they are not false, but true. :)

Regards,

Brock

[LL]

On May 11, 7:21 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Steve in Virginia
>

> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > There is no objective "truth" that humankind is evil, that is what you
> > wish to believe ...
> > Such a sad, pathetic small-minded view of humanity and the universe.
>
> I don't consider your accusation credible:  I am as inconvenienced by
> the truth of humankind's wickedness as are you.  I face injustice,
> inequities, sufferings, natural tragedies and even death on a daily
> basis, as does all of humankind without distinction.  But I am happy
> to share that God has a plan in motion that will deal with such evil,
> and will restore me to a clean and wholesome relationship with Him.
> That is good news worth sharing! :)

LL. Why should an all powerful god need a plan to deal with evil tgat
he was supposed to have had control of all along? What's with the
planning? Has the evil he created gotten out of his control? Why does
he need a plan? Why should such a god have to restore you to a clean
and wholesome relationship with him? Why did he allow your
relationship to become anything but clean and wholesome, if that's
what he wanted?

It isn't good news worth sharing, nor is it good news at all. It's a
result of convoluted, contradictory nonsense and desperate wishful
thinking on your part.

......

....
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

Or I just don't do it, though you and Neil find some entertainment in it. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.
>

No thanks, I'll stick with what I actually said. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 1:18:32 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.
>

Yes, I admit I edited your posts to make it look like you said something you didn't, and I also fantasize about God torturing atheists for eternity. 

Regards,

Brock 2000

Well, at least you're finally being honest, Brock 2000. Full marks for that. 

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Marc <mjhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 4:21 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Steve in Virginia
>>
>> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > There is no objective "truth" that humankind is evil, that is what you
>> > wish to believe ...
>> > Such a sad, pathetic small-minded view of humanity and the universe.
>>
>> I don't consider your accusation credible:  I am as inconvenienced by
>> the truth of humankind's wickedness as are you.  I face injustice,
>> inequities, sufferings, natural tragedies and even death on a daily
>> basis, as does all of humankind without distinction.  But I am happy
>> to share that God has a plan in motion that will deal with such evil,
>> and will restore me to a clean and wholesome relationship with Him.
>> That is good news worth sharing! :)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brock
>
> Hmm... alright this last few posts from you are slightly more
> illuminating than I found all of the previous I have encountered.
>
> Look as I mentioned before. I wish the world was one in which there
> was a moral absolute, such as found in a notion of sin

I consider the bible offers just such a specific principle:

"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

There it is: Humankind is accountable to God in an absolute manner.

> But the fact of the matter is that I am an atheist and as a result
> think the world and the nature of man to be indifferent to our little
> sufferings, slights, and wrongs. Indeed the very idea that such minor
> acts would matter at all, given the scale of the universe is simply
> hubris - the arrogance of the idea that what you do 'matters' on some
> grand and cosmic sense is plain staggering.

Well, against the assessment of hubris, I simply consider God's plan
for Creation puts mankind in an exalted place:

“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
From everlasting I was established,
From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills I was brought forth;
While He had not yet made the earth and the fields,
Nor the first dust of the world.
When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,
When He made firm the skies above,
When the springs of the deep became fixed,
When He set for the sea its boundary
So that the water would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Then I was beside Him, as a master workman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in the world, His earth,
And having my delight in the sons of men.
Now therefore, O sons, listen to me,
For blessed are they who keep my ways. "

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/8.htm

There you have it, out of all the delights of the created order,
humankind has a high and exalted place:

"And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in the world, His earth,
And having my delight in the sons of men.
Now therefore, O sons, listen to me,
For blessed are they who keep my ways. "

> Given the vastness of the
> universe, the indifference of nature to suffering/ prospering, and the
> fallibility of the faculty of judgment - the idea that we are
> 'special' for any reason is nonsensical.

It depends upon whose sensibility one so assesses. :)

> The only thing that 'fits'
> given all our failings as individuals within a species is that nothing
> cares about us, but us.

I disagree. Creation is God's and it only puts up with vile sinful
humankind because God has for a time compelled it to do so. :)

It is God Himself, who stays His right and just divine judgement, and
puts sinful humankind on probation, so that some will accept His mercy
and pardon and be restored to Him in right fellowship. I commend His
mercy with my whole heart to you! :)

> God is an extension of the all too human ego

I consider alternatively, that before humankind, God was there: He
precedes humankind and humankind has our being in Him, not the
converse. :)

> The sad fact (as demonstrated by the world) is all we got is 'em
> fallible faculties and an indifferent life, the universe, and
> everything else.

We've got something else, very precious and holy:

http://bible.cc

> At the end of it - I understand this is unpleasant -
> no one will tell you whether or not you did a good job with life. What
> awaits is not judgement but nothing; and therefore, yes, it does not
> ULTIMATELY matter.

I consider differently:

"God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;
... To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature,
whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of
them."

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_II.html

> Hitler and the bad people you describe are not
> going to 'get what is coming to them'; nor are they (we, or anyone
> else) going to get what they (we, or anyone else) deserve.

Well, many are going to get what they deserve, but many will also get
much better than they deserve! :D

"God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world in
righteousness by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given
of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be
judged; but likewise all persons, that have lived upon earth, shall
appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their
thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have
done in the body, whether good or evil.

The end of God's appointing this day, is for the manifestation of the
glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his
justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and
disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life,
and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing which shall come from
the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey
not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments,
and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of his power."

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXXIII.html

> The bad
> done, being done, and that will be done, as well as the good we done,
> being done, and will be done; all of it only matters to us.

I consider instead that good and evil, right and wrong, ethics and
morality are objective and independent of humankind.

> The most difficult questions in philosophy (re: ethics, purpose,
> being) are unanswered precisely because we are fallible and there is
> no method that exists separate and distinct that our fallible
> judgement that is going to help us answer them.

Amen!

But God is not similarly limited! :D

> 'God' is a convenient
> scapegoat for our fallible nature.

Or a right, just, high, holy and noble spiritual being who precedes my
existence. :)

> I know why you want God, I
> want God for the same reasons, however, strong there is no god.

Then maybe you don't know why I want God.

I want God because God made me want Him. I was spiritually dead and
fit only to be cast into the penal system of God's eternal judgement.

But God didn't let it alone. He sent His Son to "fix" what my sinful
human parents(*) broke, and fix it He has! :)

(*) - Adam and Eve

> The
> best we can hope for is to become what the ideal we imagine and hope
> to discover some meaning in that. If for a moment I believed that
> there was even a remote, but significant, possibility that an all-
> good, all-knowing force that provided solace and certainty actually
> existed I would be following it always. The only guiding light yet
> remains the all too dim light of human judgement. Wishing more,
> praying more, speaking of more, writing of more, talking about more,
> describing more in confessions, claiming the reality of more, and not
> understanding more; simply does not make 'more' exist. I have looked
> into the void and shuddered, but there is nothing more to it...
>
> I can offer you only this world.

Thanks so much for the response. I really enjoyed reading it and I
think you conveyed your principles well. Please don't take my
disagreement with you on position for a dismissal of you, your
thoughts, and your findings as a person.

Kind Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM, LL <llpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > There is no objective "truth" that humankind is evil, that is what you
>> > wish to believe ...
>> > Such a sad, pathetic small-minded view of humanity and the universe.
>>
>> I don't consider your accusation credible:  I am as inconvenienced by
>> the truth of humankind's wickedness as are you.  I face injustice,
>> inequities, sufferings, natural tragedies and even death on a daily
>> basis, as does all of humankind without distinction.  But I am happy
>> to share that God has a plan in motion that will deal with such evil,
>> and will restore me to a clean and wholesome relationship with Him.
>> That is good news worth sharing! :)
>
> LL.  Why should an all powerful god need a plan to deal with evil tgat
> he was supposed to have had control of all along?

As the God who is in control, I consider He does well to have done it
this way versus any other way He may have chose.

> What's with the
> planning?

Nothing wrong with planning. And when God plans, well, He does better
than you or I, and His plans always come to pass as He purposes. :)

> Has the evil he created gotten out of his control? Why does
> he need a plan?

I don't believe there is an indication it is out of His control.
Every aspect of creation and those who populate it are bounded by
parameters and limited to the mechanisms He has ordained.

> Why should such a god have to restore you to a clean
> and wholesome relationship with him?

Because it was broken.

> Why did he allow your
> relationship to become anything but clean and wholesome, if that's
> what he wanted?

Well, the Confession offers this:

"Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of
Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was
pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
purposed to order it to his own glory."

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VI.html

The answer is a starting point, and I agree with it, but I think God
shows in the bible something even better, and I think it has to do
with the cycle of:

* life before sin
* sin
* life marred by sin
* suffering, pain and death, and judgement

if it stopped there, it would end justly, but for the believer I think
God doesn't let it stop there:

* resurrection
* redemption and restoration

So, there are two kinds of responses humankind can have to the issue
of pain and suffering. C.S. Lewis, for example, offers one kind of
response, one that doesn't pretend to understand how it all fits
together, but still praises and worships God and delights in the final
outcome that God has planned:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html

Barth Ehrman, for example, offers another kind of response, one that
rejects the process and the Lord who ordained it, and I think, to his
shame:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-problem.html

HTH,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I admit I edited your posts to make it look like you said something
>> you didn't, and I also fantasize about God torturing atheists for eternity.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brock 2000
>
> Well, at least you're finally being honest, Brock 2000. Full marks for
> that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On May 11, 2:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m.kel...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >> > I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.
>
> >> Yes, I admit I edited your posts to make it look like you said something
> >> you didn't, and I also fantasize about God torturing atheists for eternity.
>
> >> Regards,
>
> >> Brock 2000
>
> > Well, at least you're finally being honest, Brock 2000. Full marks for
> > that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet

Unfortunately, the Brock 2000 does not have the capability to learn
new vocabulary. No matter how many times people explain what a
"sockpuppet" actually is, the Brock 2000 will continue to use its
erroneous pseudo-definition.

[Brock Organ]

Or more simply note:

"A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a
particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to
generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically
behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance
"straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The
intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made in behalf
of the same position."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

Obviously, Brock, it's time for you to look up the meaning of the word
"pseudonym" and try to grasp the erroneousness of your
characterization, then apologize to Neil for lying about him.

Because, you see, if Neil really were a "strawman sockpuppet" he would
have created a fake Christian pseudonym and had it post all sort of
moronic pro-Christian arguments that laughably easy for the real "Neil
Kelsey" to defeat in debate. Wait a minute... that's what Brock
does. Maybe Brock is trying to tell us that he is the strawman
sockpuppet! it all makes sense now - good one, Brock 2000.

- Bob T
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Observer]

On May 10, 3:59 pm, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
>
> calling us all sinful".
>
> Christians consider the entire human community as one whole society,
> and since what affects one part could affect the whole it isn't safe
> to assume that children born in Mr x' s house are sinless because of
> the parents' goodness. Because, they must grow up to contend with the
> effects of other people's actions outside their own 'perfect' home
> with the implication that they too might be tempted to sin in the
> process. Therefore, the Christian ' presumptive' view on this is
> proper. Those who have chosen to ignore Paul' s statement that "all
> have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"  might find this
> explanation worthy of contemplation.



Observer

People who believe are damned fools !

People who believe in any god are "god" damned fools. !


Learn to use the tools of the cognoscente , reason, logic, scientific
method , a reasonable reliance thereupon, and of course the all
important rules of critical thought.

Failing to do so , just makes you look damned stupid.

But I guess stupid is as stupid does.

Psychonomist




>
> On May 10, 3:19 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Brock I will just make two comments.
>
> > > > Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
> > > > notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.
>
> > > Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
> > > perceived as "nice" by non-believers.   I've considered carefully for
> > > years that folks like you and others don't like being told that
> > > without Christ you face eternal hell.  It is very offensive and unfair
> > > to some to be confronted with the idea that rather than being neutral
> > > or basically good, people have a character with an inherent bias to
> > > evil.
>
> > But we do not see how from the bible written from men you can believe there
> > if such a thing as god. The bible is just a story like any other you can
> > read without anything to back up that any of it happened.
>
> > > But that doesn't make the doctrines of sin and eternal judgment any
> > > less true, or the need for salvation any less great. :(

>
> > > So, the question is, can I (or Ray Comfort) challenge presuppositions
> > > like the "but I'm basically a good person" fallacy without being
> > > labeled as "not nice" (or misanthropic as observer likes to accuse)?
> > > Must he and I wade through mountains of accusations of hatred, bigotry
> > > and cursing before a non-believer will consider the doctrinal
> > > statements regarding humankind's sinfulness?
>

> > Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
> > calling us all sinful.
>
> > > My anecdotal experience here on AvC is that some posters simply aren't
> > > able to interact with folks who offer a different view from them
> > > without cursing, invective and vituperation.  Anything rather than
> > > calmly face a hard soul-searching and scripture searching discussion
> > > about humankind's sinful nature, and its implications on our behavior,
> > > and moral and ethical issues.
>
> > Some people may use harsh language but not all and why should we discuss
> > what it not there in our view. That is like asking to to discuss the man in
> > the moon who is just a fairy story.
>
> > > I think I do a pretty good job of disagreeing without being
> > > disagreeable, but in a lot of cases non-believers simply tie being
> > > "honest" or "nice" or having "integrity" as some other subjective
> > > approval that means first agreeing to start from their presupposed
> > > positions regarding the nature of reality (such as the "I'm basically
> > > a good person" fallacy).  But that isn't something I believe can be
> > > supported, and I say so.  Nicely.  Honestly.  And, with the Lord's
> > > grace, I pray with integrity. :)
>
> > If you talked about reality and not about images in youir mind we could get
> > somewhere.
>
> > > > Also It is very different if we met face to face to discus our ideas
> > > than if
> > > > we just contribute via the web. Then we see body language as well as
> > > voice.
>
> > > Thanks, Ian.  The video I cited above was a phone conversation between
> > > Ray and the atheist hosts, I thought it went as good as these kind of
> > > conversations generally go.  I felt that the atheist hosts were
> > > generous in giving Ray time to respond to their issues, and I thought
> > > they made several good points, and I thought Ray did a good job of
> > > stating his positions and addressing weaknesses in the positions of
> > > the other side.  It wasn't a perfect exchange, and at times one could
> > > sense the frustration each side had with the other at the other sides
> > > inability to "see things my way" ... but I thought it was still a good
> > > dialogue.
>
> > > 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

[Neil Kelsey]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 2:34:30 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, I admit I edited your posts to make it look like you said something
>> you didn't, and I also fantasize about God torturing atheists for eternity.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brock 2000
>
> Well, at least you're finally being honest, Brock 2000. Full marks for
> that.

www.brock2000lovessatan.com

Regards,

Brock 2000

So the Brock 2000 is a Satanist. That explains a lot. This has been a very profitable and edifying exchange. Thank you, Brock 2000!  

[Brock Organ]

Or just note the nature of his puppetry.

> Because, you see, if Neil really were a "strawman sockpuppet" he would
> have created a fake Christian pseudonym

Well, for Neil to have to put words I didn't say into my mouth as if I
did say them is perhaps as much of an concession/left-handed
compliment as I'm likely to get from such eristocrats as you and he.
:)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

"A strawman sockpuppet is a false flag pseudonym created to make a
particular point of view look foolish or unwholesome in order to
generate negative sentiment against it. Strawman sockpuppets typically
behave in an unintelligent, uninformed, or bigoted manner and advance
"straw man" arguments that their puppeteers can easily refute. The
intended effect is to discredit more rational arguments made in behalf
of the same position."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_sockpuppet#Strawman_sockpuppet

Regards,

Brock

[Neil Kelsey]

On Friday, May 11, 2012 3:30:15 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 11, 2012 2:34:30 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > I've noticed, which is why I'm putting words into your mouth.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I admit I edited your posts to make it look like you said
>> >> something
>> >> you didn't, and I also fantasize about God torturing atheists for
>> >> eternity.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Brock 2000
>> >
>> > Well, at least you're finally being honest, Brock 2000. Full marks for
>> > that.
>>
>> www.brock2000lovessatan.com
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Brock 2000
>
>
> So the Brock 2000 is a Satanist. That explains a lot. This has been a very
> profitable and edifying exchange. Thank you, Brock 2000!

"Take what you will, dear reader, but know that this deity does not exist in some faraway paradise that you can only enter upon death (and if you've been "good"). This divinity is right here on earth,  all the time, and there is a part of Him in every single organism that lives and breathes. He lives inside you, He lives inside me, and we do not have to deny ourselves to experience His divinity. The Dragon of the Underworld emanates light from within our hearts and souls, and if we use it wisely and remain faithful to our inner selves, we can make life all the more fun for ourselves and each other."

Oh no, Brock 2000! You seem to have turned to the dark side. I guess it was only a matter of time.  

 

www.brock2000lovessatan.com 

Regards,

Brock 2000 

[Brock Organ]

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Birric Forcella <erni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To Brock:
>>
>> Well, let's start with this question:  What do you know, and how do
>> you know it.  It's not enough to just say that you know.  No matter
>> how sure your knowledge, how did you come by it - and what exactly
>> does it contain.
>
> Hi Birric,
>
> I consider the question not so simple.  Here's what I said to LL
> earlier in response to her inquiry:
>
>> I guess we'll have to rephrase.  What makes you
>> think the god you believe exists is as you present him?
>
> I don't think there is a "what" so much as a "who".
>
> When people ask such a "what" (or "how") they are typically interested
> in mechanism, like "what makes you think you see trees in your front
> yard?" or "how do you know how high the grass in your yard is?" ...
> the typical expected answer is some sort of delving into the workings
> of the human eye, with maybe a reference to how those sensations are
> possibly assembled in the brain into images with semantic content,
> etc. ...
>
> or perhaps they are less interested in mechanism, and more interested
> in algorithm, process or sequence of logical deductions, like "what
> makes you think the fundamental theorem of calculus is applicable
> here?" or "can we justify reducing a more complex problem into a
> simpler problem?"...
>
> BUT, ask a question where there is no formal demonstration of
> mechanism easily available, or algorithm, process or sequence of
> logical deduction, and one steps into deeper epistemological waters.
> :)
>
> And so we have here.  I think the most responsible answer I can give,
> is to make clear the inadequacies of appeals to mechanism and
> algorithm, and directly give the credit for my understanding to God
> Himself:
>
> "People should be moved and induced to a high and reverent esteem of
> the Bible. It speaks of heavenly matters, provides efficient and
> specific doctrines, has a majesty of style, a consent of all its
> parts, and has a scope of its whole that gives glory to God. It makes
> a full discovery of the only way for humankind's salvation. It offers
> many normative truths, excellent beyond compare and is entirely
> perfect for God's planned purpose.
>
> External observations and measurements of its qualities, such as the
> above, can and do give evidence that the Bible is the very word of
> God. However, it is the testimony of God's Holy Spirit in human hearts
> and minds that bears full persuasion and assurance."
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek
>

Don't you think that this exact statement is exactly antithetical to
debate? Debate is a discussion with arguments, points and
counterpoints, evidence and proofs. If you don't think that such a
paradigm can get to the truth of the matter, then why exactly should
one debate about it? If we were asked to decide whether or not humans
are contributing to global warming, for instance, and someone claimed
that there was no such process, algorithm, etc to get to the bottom of
it, and instead a "who" that would reveal global warming to you, would
you spend time engaging in a debate with such a person?

>> In return, I will answer for you any question you may have about
>> evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, or the workings of the natural
>> world, including the mind, Einstein, quantum physics, or
>> interconnectivity, which are special areas of interest for me - though
>> I am not a physicist.
>
> Thanks for your gracious offer.  My question is simple:
>
> If you reject the bible, what "smoking gun" specific objective fact or
> issue caused you to reject it?
>
>> As an example, let's examine the Ray Comfort interview.
>>
>> Comfort says had a conversion "more real than his life."  He says:  "I
>> know god.  I've known god since 1972, 25th of April 1:30 in the
>> morning."  (31 min 12 sec into the interview)
>>
>> Apparently, at that time god talked to him and made himself known to
>> dear old Ray.
>>
>> The problem is, experiences like that are common like ragweed.
>> Moslems have them, Hindus, Mormons and lots more.  All are taken as
>> proof for a specific view of god.
>
> Well, to the degree that the other experiences are independent of
> Ray's, I don't agree that the falsity of the others disqualify the
> truth of Ray's.  Or, as I've said before, the existence of the
> counterfeit does not disprove the existence of the genuine.
>
> I heard it just yesterday on a google+ hangout "I reject all religions
> because they can't all be true" (my paraphrase) ... Well, I agree,
> that they can't all be true, but that doesn't mean that one of them
> isn't true. :)
>
>> Worse yet, Comfort cannot explain why he may not be deceived.  He
>> admits there are false conversions and fake pastors  Comfort confesses
>> he can't even tell who is is true Christian.
>
> Well, what is so bad about that?  No one need be able to explain a
> position to hold a position, nor for the position to be true.  For
> example, here is atheist Robert Ingersoll, rejecting God, yet unable
> to answer even a "simple" question:

>
> "What is matter?  i confess I can't tell.  I take a handful of earth,
> and in it I plant a seed, and the arrows of light from the sun fall
> upon it, and the dews moisten it, a little green shaft appears, and
> then a bud, and then a flower.  I know all this, but I do not know
> what causes it, any more than I know the origin of thought"
>

> http://tinyurl.com/78dt5hn
>
> Even after 2500+ years of history, human philosophy still struggles
> with even basic questions regarding being, ethics, the nature of
> knowledge, and motion, etc.
>
>> They can't all be right.  They all tell you to check the Bible or some
>> other holy book to confirm what they say . . .
>
> I agree, not all religious claims are true.  But that doesn't
> therefore imply that none of them are. :)
>
>> But Ray Comfort has a second problem which is at least as serious.
>> What exactly did god say to him, and what did it mean?
>
> Well, you'd need to ask Ray, I won't claim to speak for him. :)
>
>> A Case of a God-Believing Atheist
>>
>> In the discussion Comfort tells us that god spoke to him exactly at
>> 1:30am.  I have ploughed through hundreds of hits for Ray Comfort.  I
>> found nothing specific about his visitation  If anybody could supply
>> the exact details and words of god, I would appreciate it.
>>
>> At any rate.  God must have spoken to him for many, many hours going
>> through the whole Bible.  1:30am just doesn't sound right.  If he had
>> said "god talked to me all night" I might have more confidence.  The
>> reason for that is obvious.  Comfort has little trouble denying the
>> truth of various parts of the Bible (including the age of the earth)
>> and takes much metaphorically.  In other regards he says "this is
>> absolute truth."
>>
>> "There is a lot of things in the Bible I don't agree with" (42 min, 45
>> sec into the discussion.
>>
>> Unless god told him exactly chapter and verse where he can believe,
>> doubt, and deny - by what authority does he believe, doubt, or deny?
>> Maybe Comfort would tell us that god said the Bible is true.  But
>> since he denies and freely interprets parts of the Bible - clearly
>> that statement of god would not be enough.  Maybe god told him "I am
>> your savior." - then why would that prove anything in the OT or NT
>> except what these words imply.  Did god also tell him about things NOT
>> in the Bible?  Like abortion?  God had unborn babies killed (women who
>> had known a man).  Did god tell him he had changed his mind?
>
> Good questions, and legitimate ones.  Unfortunately, I can't speak for
> Ray, so I can't help you with an answer.
>
>> What exactly did god say to Comfort?
>
> Again, I don't speak for Ray, so I can't help you with an answer.
>
>> Mutatis mutandis, Brock - did god ever talk to you?  And what did he
>> say?
>
> Well, I'd like to make a distinction in your question.  I am not a
> pantheist.  No "god" has ever spoken to me. :)
>
> However, as a Christian, I do wish to testify that the high and holy
> living God has spoken to me personally[1]! :)
>
> And fortunately I can give you a reliable transcript, here's what He said:
>
> http://bible.cc
>
> [1] more specifically I hold to the position that the bible is "verbal
> plenary inspired in its original autographs" -
> http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html
>
>>
>> Birric Forcella
>>
>> Better explanations rule !
>
> Amen! :)

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Marc <mjhr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Excellent point. I was pondering this the other day, actually. Some
time ago, when I discussed with someone what had made me into an
atheist, they asked me "Who do you think you are? Who are you to
question Jesus?" This was kind of amusing, actually, because
apparently it's totally fine to think that this vast, complicated,
interesting universe which has been in evolution for 13700000000
billion years, in a cycle of star formation, planetary formation,
stellar collapse, supernovae, galaxy collisions, black holes, active
galactic nuclei, neutron stars, pulsars, etc, etc, etc, was all
somehow carefully and elegantly designed specifically so that in the
last 0.000005% of existence, a specific species (an ape) on the
outskirts of a rather ordinary spiral galaxy on a collision course
with the neighboring one could evolve to play out some grand cosmic
melodrama involving obedience, forgiveness, eternal bliss and eternal
torture.

THAT kind of hubris is truly baffling to me.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Salvatore Rappoccio
<rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "People should be moved and induced to a high and reverent esteem of
>> the Bible. It speaks of heavenly matters, provides efficient and
>> specific doctrines, has a majesty of style, a consent of all its
>> parts, and has a scope of its whole that gives glory to God. It makes
>> a full discovery of the only way for humankind's salvation. It offers
>> many normative truths, excellent beyond compare and is entirely
>> perfect for God's planned purpose.
>>
>> External observations and measurements of its qualities, such as the
>> above, can and do give evidence that the Bible is the very word of
>> God. However, it is the testimony of God's Holy Spirit in human hearts
>> and minds that bears full persuasion and assurance."
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek
>>
>
> Don't you think that this exact statement is exactly antithetical to
> debate?

No, just a clarification if a question would seek to limit an answer
to mechanism, or perhaps a sequence of reasoning, it has important
epistemological limitations.

> Debate is a discussion with arguments, points and
> counterpoints, evidence and proofs.

And the understanding of their limitations. :)

> If you don't think that such a
> paradigm can get to the truth of the matter, then why exactly should
> one debate about it?

I just note if person A says "I see trees in my front yard", and
someone responds "ok, how do you know they are trees?", person A need
not respond with a formal demonstration of the mechanisms of cognition
to be correct or truthful in their statement. Neither would person A
need to present a chain of logical consequence that would allow a 3rd
party to independently verify "Yup, there are trees in person A's
front yard" ... :)

> If we were asked to decide whether or not humans
> are contributing to global warming, for instance, and someone claimed
> that there was no such process, algorithm, etc to get to the bottom of
> it, and instead a "who" that would reveal global warming to you, would
> you spend time engaging in a debate with such a person?

I would consider the distinction between the legitimate use of process
and method and an untenable use:

"Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
definite boundaries between them. Yet some people [incorrectly]
believe that the boundaries are most distinct and obvious. ...
Scientists frequently [err to] think that their results spring
directly and solely from experimentation quite apart from philosophic
speculation and metaphysics."

http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=127

Regards,

Brock

[Salvatore Rappoccio]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Salvatore Rappoccio
> <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "People should be moved and induced to a high and reverent esteem of
>>> the Bible. It speaks of heavenly matters, provides efficient and
>>> specific doctrines, has a majesty of style, a consent of all its
>>> parts, and has a scope of its whole that gives glory to God. It makes
>>> a full discovery of the only way for humankind's salvation. It offers
>>> many normative truths, excellent beyond compare and is entirely
>>> perfect for God's planned purpose.
>>>
>>> External observations and measurements of its qualities, such as the
>>> above, can and do give evidence that the Bible is the very word of
>>> God. However, it is the testimony of God's Holy Spirit in human hearts
>>> and minds that bears full persuasion and assurance."
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek
>>>
>>
>> Don't you think that this exact statement is exactly antithetical to
>> debate?
>
> No, just a clarification if a question would seek to limit an answer
> to mechanism, or perhaps a sequence of reasoning, it has important
> epistemological limitations.
>
>> Debate is a discussion with arguments, points and
>> counterpoints, evidence and proofs.
>
> And the understanding of their limitations. :)
>

So if the activity that you are currently engaged in (debate) is
limited in learning the truth of the topic OF the debate, that sounds
an awful lot like a pointless exercise to me. It's rather puzzling to
me that you are pleading for honest debate on a subject that you
diligently claim cannot be determined with debate, logic, reason, etc.
Perhaps you could explain what instead you are looking for here? I
honestly do not understand.

>
>> If you don't think that such a
>> paradigm can get to the truth of the matter, then why exactly should
>> one debate about it?
>
> I just note if person A says "I see trees in my front yard", and
> someone responds "ok, how do you know they are trees?", person A need
> not respond with a formal demonstration of the mechanisms of cognition
> to be correct or truthful in their statement.  Neither would person A
> need to present a chain of logical consequence that would allow a 3rd
> party to independently verify "Yup, there are trees in person A's
> front yard" ... :)

Yet the activity that person A is engaging in is gathering evidence to
make an argument. If such evidence cannot be used for the purpose you
have in mind, why is this a relevant analogy?

>
>> If we were asked to decide whether or not humans
>> are contributing to global warming, for instance, and someone claimed
>> that there was no such process, algorithm, etc to get to the bottom of
>> it, and instead a "who" that would reveal global warming to you, would
>> you spend time engaging in a debate with such a person?
>
> I would consider the distinction between the legitimate use of process
> and method and an untenable use:
>
> "Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
> ... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
> definite boundaries between them.  Yet some people [incorrectly]
> believe that the boundaries are most distinct and obvious.  ...
> Scientists frequently [err to] think that their results spring
> directly and solely from experimentation quite apart from philosophic
> speculation and metaphysics."
>
> http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=127
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>

I would bring to your attention a different quote:

"Science is a system of statements based on direct experience, and
controlled by experimental verification." Rudolf Carnap.

What is different about knowledge that you consider appropriate to the
discussion, and statements based on direct experience, controlled by
experimental verification?

[LL]

On May 11, 2:32 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:30 PM, LL <llpens3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > There is no objective "truth" that humankind is evil, that is what you
> >> > wish to believe ...
> >> > Such a sad, pathetic small-minded view of humanity and the universe.
>
> >> I don't consider your accusation credible:  I am as inconvenienced by
> >> the truth of humankind's wickedness as are you.  I face injustice,
> >> inequities, sufferings, natural tragedies and even death on a daily
> >> basis, as does all of humankind without distinction.  But I am happy
> >> to share that God has a plan in motion that will deal with such evil,
> >> and will restore me to a clean and wholesome relationship with Him.
> >> That is good news worth sharing! :)
>
> > LL.  Why should an all powerful god need a plan to deal with evil tgat
> > he was supposed to have had control of all along?
>
> As the God who is in control, I consider He does well to have done it
> this way versus any other way He may have chose.
>
> > What's with the
> > planning?
>
> Nothing wrong with planning.  And when God plans, well, He does better
> than you or I, and His plans always come to pass as He purposes. :)

LL. How could it be otherwise? Since that's the case he doesn't need
a plan. Only mortals need plans.

>
> > Has the evil he created gotten out of his control? Why does
> > he need a plan?
>
> I don't believe there is an indication it is out of His control.
> Every aspect of creation and those who populate it are bounded by
> parameters and limited to the mechanisms He has ordained.

LL. And he has ordained evil and chaos and pretends to fix them, like
the car mechanic who appears from under your car and tells you you
have a broken frammis and he has a plan to fix it for only a little
less than the car is worth.

>
> > Why should such a god have to restore you to a clean
> > and wholesome relationship with him?
>
> Because it was broken.
>
> > Why did he allow your
> > relationship to become anything but clean and wholesome, if that's
> > what he wanted?
>
> Well, the Confession offers this:
>
> "Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of
> Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was
> pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
> purposed to order it to his own glory."

LL. Qnd you believe an rationalize such a ridiculous premise. If
there is a god suc as you believe in l can imagine him shaking his
head and saying. "What horrorhave I wrought?"

>
> http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_VI.html
>
> The answer is a starting point, and I agree with it, but I think God
> shows in the bible something even better, and I think it has to do
> with the cycle of:
>
> *  life before sin
> *  sin
> *  life marred by sin
> *  suffering, pain and death, and judgement

Sin, suffering, pain and death and judgement that he created.

>
> if it stopped there, it would end justly, but for the believer I think
> God doesn't let it stop there:
>
> * resurrection
> * redemption and restoration
>
> So, there are two kinds of responses humankind can have to the issue
> of pain and suffering.  C.S. Lewis, for example, offers one kind of
> response, one that doesn't pretend to understand how it all fits
> together, but still praises and worships God and delights in the final
> outcome that God has planned:
>
> http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html
>
> Barth Ehrman, for example, offers another kind of response, one that
> rejects the process and the Lord who ordained it, and I think, to his
> shame:
>

> http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-gods-pr...



LL. All you have demonstrated here is that the god you believe in
would be a sadist if he existed. I'm glad such a horrific creature
cannot exist.

......
>
> HTH,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Salvatore Rappoccio

I think you have to look at the context of these questions by birric:

> Well, let's start with this question: What do you know, and how do
> you know it.

Pretty open ended questions. Establishing the limitations off "what"
and "how" are relevant and worthwhile, especially if the tendency is
for non-believers to want "what" and "how" instead of "who". :)

> It's rather puzzling to
> me that you are pleading for honest debate on a subject that you
> diligently claim cannot be determined with debate, logic, reason, etc.

I don't see why. Saying that "not all knowledge is demonstrable" is a
responsible reply to those who insist that demonstration is a
pre-condition to a discussion.

> Perhaps you could explain what instead you are looking for here? I
> honestly do not understand.

Well, did you watch the Ray Comfort/Matt Dillahunty and Russell
Glasser interview? My point was that in addition to the chummy and
fraternal type of debate that Wally and Andre had in the previous "My
dinner with Andre" example, the interview with Ray and Matt and
Russell represented another positive type of interaction that I
believe is worthwhile. :)

>> "Science, the history of science, and the philosophy of science are
>> ... so inextricably fused or confused that it is impossible to draw
>> definite boundaries between them.  Yet some people [incorrectly]
>> believe that the boundaries are most distinct and obvious.  ...
>> Scientists frequently [err to] think that their results spring
>> directly and solely from experimentation quite apart from philosophic
>> speculation and metaphysics."
>>
>> http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?products_id=127
>>
>

> I would bring to your attention a different quote:
>
> "Science is a system of statements based on direct experience, and
> controlled by experimental verification." Rudolf Carnap.
>
> What is different about knowledge that you consider appropriate to the
> discussion, and statements based on direct experience, controlled by
> experimental verification?

Again, it goes back to the open ended questions asked by birrhic:

> Well, let's start with this question: What do you know, and how do
> you know it. It's not enough to just say that you know. No matter
> how sure your knowledge, how did you come by it - and what exactly
> does it contain.

"what" and "how" ... questions that generally are asking for answers
that explore method, process and algorithm, or maybe mechanism. Great
questions in and of themselves, and ones where science can be a
helpful tool.

But issues that involve "who" or "why" (not why in the context of
mechanism, which is simply a mis-asking of "what" and "how") the
limitations of method, process, algorithm and mechanism are specific
and clear, and their abuse can be widespread.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:26 PM, LL <llpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nothing wrong with planning.  And when God plans, well, He does better
>> than you or I, and His plans always come to pass as He purposes. :)
>
> LL.  How could it be otherwise?

It can't be. :)

> Since that's the case he doesn't need
> a plan. Only mortals need plans.

Well, the use of the term ordained, or planned, or predestined in
relation to God makes clear:

* He developed a scheme or way of acting in His creation
* He had a specific project and definite purpose in mind for His creation
* He arranged beforehand that certain contingencies would come to pass

>> I don't believe there is an indication it is out of His control.
>> Every aspect of creation and those who populate it are bounded by
>> parameters and limited to the mechanisms He has ordained.
>
> LL.  And he has ordained evil and chaos and pretends to fix them, like
> the car mechanic who appears from under your car and tells you you
> have a broken frammis and he has a plan to fix it for only a little
> less than the car is worth.

Or that He was pleased to sovereignly create many different kinds of beings.

>> Well, the Confession offers this:
>>
>> "Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of
>> Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was
>> pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
>> purposed to order it to his own glory."
>
>
> LL.  Qnd you believe an rationalize such a ridiculous premise. If
> there is a god suc as you believe in l can imagine him shaking his
> head and saying. "What horrorhave I wrought?"

Well, I don't hold God culpable for humankind's sin. :)

>> *  life before sin
>> *  sin
>> *  life marred by sin
>> *  suffering, pain and death, and judgement
>
> Sin, suffering, pain and death and judgement that he created.

God didn't create your post. You did.

> LL. All you have demonstrated here is that the god you believe in
> would be a sadist if he existed.

Or that the use of subjective human-centered assessments can be
greatly abused. :)

> I'm glad such a horrific creature cannot exist.

God is not a creature, He is the Creator. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Steve in Virginia]

Your "objective reality" is no more real than a child's belief that a
large white bunny rabbit with a purple and yellow vest and a pocket
watch will be bring colored Easter eggs and jelly beans. But what is
truly reprehensible is your thinly veiled hatred of humanity. It
borders on the pathological. So sad.

Steve

On May 11, 9:26 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Steve in Virginia

>
> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > No Brock, you've missed the boat once again. What atheist don't like
> > is being told that some ancient middle eastern mythology is fact.
>
> But, to the degree that it is objectively true, I consider the
> preference to "not like it" to not be virtuous.
>

> > What we atheist find offensive (not to mention utterly insane)  is the
> > filthy, dehumanizing and miserable christian position that we have am
> > inherent bias towards evil,
>
> Well, like it or not, it is objectively true:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJccOedwHT0
>
> I don't present the position simply because I enjoy being offensive,
> but because the need for a perspicuity of truth is so very great.  For
> an example, a man breaks into a house, murders a 70+ year old woman
> sleeping in her bed, stabbing her dozens of times with a screwdriver;
> when caught and questioned by police, he admits to the killing, but
> insists "I am not a bad person" (my paraphrase).
>
> For another example, two men grab a young woman in a grocery store
> parking lot,  kidnap her and her baby, force her to withdraw money
> from her bank card, then they take her and the baby to a remote
> location where they kill the mother and leave the baby for dead.
> Caught, questioned by the police, and presented with the forensic
> evidence one of the killers unrepentantly indicates "I don't know what
> you are talking about" (my paraphrase).
>
> Two youths enter and steal a bait car left by police, and are caught
> gloating and laughing about the theft on a hidden video camera.
> Later, when apprehended, they deny the theft, and offer that they were
> just helpfully moving the car for a cousin.
>
> Sorry if you find these examples of the objective truth of sinful
> human nature offensive, but they are true and need to be dealt with
> for what they are.  Now, I note it is true that as far as we all know,
> neither you nor I have done similar crimes, but when I examine my
> character, conduct and speech against the divine moral standard,  I
> learn that I have all of the same kinds of evil present, even if such
> evil is not actively being displayed. :)
>
> > Isn't it strange that the god of the bible acts exactly like some
> > ruthless, capricious, despotic ancient tyrant?  No you wouldn't - and
> > the sad part that says more about the traumatized mind of the
> > believer, than what my non-belief says about me.
>
> Well, I don't agree with your assessment of God, and note that He is
> instead of a high, noble and exalted character.  He is right to
> government-ally administer His creation, and an excellent judge.  But,
> of course, He is more than that, and has graciously offered mercy and
> pardon to people who only deserve the penalty of justice, like people
> who murder, steal, lie, cheat, deceive and have every kind of
> wickedness in their character.
>
> Hallelujah!  What a Savior!
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Steve in Virginia
<resur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Your "objective reality"

Well, objective reality isn't mine. :)

> But what is
> truly reprehensible is your thinly veiled hatred of humanity.

Just careful to note that it is objectively true that humankind
possesses an evil sinful nature.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On May 11, 8:30 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Steve in Virginia
>

> <resurgam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Your "objective reality"
>
> Well, objective reality isn't mine. :)

Nor is it very similary to your Bible-addled view of it ;-}

>
> > But what is
> > truly reprehensible is your thinly veiled hatred of humanity.
>
> Just careful to note that it is objectively true that humankind
> possesses an evil sinful nature.

No, Brock, the word :"objectively" does not mean "the Bible says it, I
believe it, and that settles it."

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> Just careful to note that it is objectively true that humankind
>> possesses an evil sinful nature.
>
> No, Brock, the word :"objectively" does not mean "the Bible says it, I
> believe it, and that settles it."

But it is objectively true that humankind possesses an evil sinful nature. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

No, it's not - that's a subjective faith-based evaluation.

In contrast, I offer the observation that humans do pretty well, for
evolved pack mammals.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 8:43 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> >> Just careful to note that it is objectively true that humankind
>> >> possesses an evil sinful nature.
>>
>> > No, Brock, the word :"objectively" does not mean "the Bible says it, I
>> > believe it, and that settles it."
>>
>> But it is objectively true that humankind possesses an evil sinful nature. :)
>
> No, it's not - that's a subjective faith-based evaluation.

It's God's judicial assessment of humankind's failure to live by
divine standards.

Regards,

Brock

[Ian Betts]

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.

God is not there except in that book so how can he command anything when its just in your head Brock.

--
Ian

[Bob T.]

In your subjective opinion. In my subjective opinion, God does not
exist at all. In the subjective opinions of millions of other people,
God exists but has different ideas about "sin" than the god you
subjectively believe in.

[love&peace]

On May 11, 11:09 pm, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 3:59 pm, "love&peace" <williamu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >"Humans are not born into sin and so you Christians should really stop
>
> > calling us all sinful".
>
> > Christians consider the entire human community as one whole society,
> > and since what affects one part could affect the whole it isn't safe
> > to assume that children born in Mr x' s house are sinless because of
> > the parents' goodness. Because, they must grow up to contend with the
> > effects of other people's actions outside their own 'perfect' home
> > with the implication that they too might be tempted to sin in the
> > process. Therefore, the Christian ' presumptive' view on this is
> > proper. Those who have chosen to ignore Paul' s statement that "all
> > have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"  might find this
> > explanation worthy of contemplation.
>
> Observer
>
> People who believe are damned  fools !
>
> People who believe in any god are "god" damned fools. !
>
> Learn to use the tools of the cognoscente , reason, logic, scientific
> method , a reasonable reliance thereupon, and of course the all
> important rules of critical thought.
>
> Failing to do so , just makes you look damned stupid.
>
> But I guess stupid is as stupid does.

If atheist actually wish to attract the billions of the 'stupids' into
their folds to save them from 'foolishness' and 'stupidity', they must
revise their vocabulary in order to present a better facade. Should
you, Observer, insist that you are right in the use of such needless
words, you would be required to prove that everyone who believes in
God is 'stupid' and a 'god' damned fool!'. It shows how little you
know.

Your vast intellect should have cautioned you against such

[Neil Kelsey]

Is it intelligent to cling to a falsehood out of spite? Because while I understand your emotional reaction, this is what your point amounts to... 

> > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.

> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[love&peace]

Is it unintelligent to admit that one does not know everything and so
he/she is not qualified to call what he/she does not understand
'stupid'? Or falsehood?

> > > > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 11, 11:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> > On May 11, 8:43 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:33 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Just careful to note that it is objectively true that humankind
>> >> >> possesses an evil sinful nature.
>>
>> >> > No, Brock, the word :"objectively" does not mean "the Bible says it, I
>> >> > believe it, and that settles it."
>>
>> >> But it is objectively true that humankind possesses an evil sinful nature. :)
>>
>> > No, it's not - that's a subjective faith-based evaluation.
>>
>> It's God's judicial assessment of humankind's failure to live by divine standards.
>
> In your subjective opinion.

Or objectively and independently of my person. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Alan Wostenberg]

Thanks for the video link, Brock. I listened to the first fifth. They were civil with one another and that was a goo to hear.

In those opening dozen minutes the atheist was quick to point out the christian made many assertions (the world is created, for example), and not arguments. In the classic theistic arguments that's a conclusion, not a premise, but the Christian didn't bring them forth.

12:30 into it the atheist makes his first claim which can, and should, be questioned:

"best method we have for understanding reality is the scientific method, by and large it's the single most reliable consistent self-correcting method for discerning truth now if there's some other way on finding out the truth about reality, of course we'd all be interested in knowing it"

Lot's of philosophy packed into that first sentence, and I was hoping the Christian would critically examine it, but he did not right then. Did he circle back to it later?

[Ian Betts]

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 keep saying the same ting that means little Brock

--
Ian

[Steve in Virginia]

As I said, Sad, sick and twisted. But thank you for validating my
assessment.

Steve

On May 11, 11:30 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Steve in Virginia
>

[Marc]

On May 11, 6:09 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The bible is insufficient on two fronts:
> > 1) The proposed evidence is not grounded in careful empirical
> > observation of the universe (the one including us).
>
> Well, to rebut 1), one only need note that as empirical standards fail
> to be adequate epistemological standards, so that the bible does (or
> does not) conform to them doesn't make the bible insufficient, only
> empiricism itself.

You can 'note' it all you want, however, unless you outline some of
these inadequacies noting is a waste of time - explanation is
required. Any number of claims can be made, for example, unicorns are
pink; but unless it is backed up with reason and/ or explanation who
cares that it is claimed. I have studied, do study, and will study, a
great deal of philosophy in my life from Socrates - Heidegger (and
beyond) - and I have not come to the same conclusion. Indeed, in
contrast, if it isn't empirical then it is limited. The world does not
lie, psychologies do. Thus if a claim is made sourced in psychology if
it is not bound by the world then it is as untrustworthy, and in
disgrace, as people (the source).

> 2) If the God within the texts where real then he would not be worthy
> > of trust/faith; he is a cruel and petty <profanity>.
>
> I disagree, the bible indicates God is a holy and high being of every
> kind of moral and ethical excellence. :)
>
> > So here is where it stands between us:
>
> > Your propose the bible as evidence of God and his grace.
> > I have a copy of that collection of texts (KJV), and on reading it
> > have found in it nothing that reflects any truth.
>
> I have read the same text and concluded differently.

So you attest, but I do not? The issue is exactly how you can think
that, because I sure as hell do not see it... not even is it slightly
possible that the entity/ force expressed in that translation is even
a little bit good. So what I am misreading exactly?

> > Well... beyond the truth that the God of Abraham, as an entity spoken
> > of within the bible, is a petty <profanity>.
>
> > Here you will suggest that 'I' am not the criteria for what is of
> > importance, fact, or worth.
>
> Or more simply offer that the pejorative is not in regards to God, but
> is instead in our human process of evaluation ... For example, two
> different district attorneys, when presented with the evidence of a
> crime, can legitimately go in different directions.  One can review
> the material, evaluate it and choose to indict and prosecute, while
> another might review the exact same material, evaluate the case and
> not indict!

You accept the limitation of human thinking, then why not accept that
the limit may well apply to any and all thinking about God? That
revelation is a result of human fault and fallibility rather than some
external 'thing' expressing itself.

> So the pejorative is not that God is profane, but that our
evaluation
> and/or assessments of Him and of the objective nature of reality are
> very often profane!
>
> > So what then is the criteria for determining something has importance,
> > worth, or is fact?
>
> Great question.  This is one of the foundational questions of the
> science of epistemology.  So, while I am happy to provide the "best"
> answers I can, I provide them humbly understanding the issues are not
> simple, and recognizing the danger of over-simplification.

Um... again I studied philosophy will do a phd in it (eventually) and
this position is not clear.

> Maybe this question should have its own thread ... :)

Until such time I will ignore the claim, as it is unsubstantiated.

> > Should I: *simply* read the bible, with ONLY acceptance in my heart?
> > Also, in all moments that I find the bible does not match up with the
> > world, reality, and/ or human nature; I must *merely* chastise myself
> > for being wrong? When the world and the bible do not align MUST I
> > always tell myself that it is my fault - and not the fault of the
> > Bible?
>
> See my answers below, and feel free to follow up if you don't like them.
>
> > You are more than welcome to dismiss these as loaded questions
> > (as you dismiss all my questions in some or other way). At some point
> > to have a conversation you have to accept another person into it.
>
> Well, I am careful to distinguish between presuppositions that I do
> not accept, and loaded and emotive accusations that aren't much more
> than a verbal whack with a stick.
>
> > Anyway how should I read the Bible? I have read it as seriously as I
> > am able, in an attempt to discover truth (beyond my own ego), and am
> > now an atheist. Has God hardened my heart to his existence?
>
> Well, first let me say that I believe you.  I am not trying to
> minimize your legitimate efforts. :)
>
> Can I share something personal with you, at the risk of embarrassment?
>  I have been studying a subject (the lambda calculus) for 20 years,
> and the seminal book on the subject still beats me up, hurts my brain,
> and despite my best efforts I am still a student frustrated that I
> don't learn the subject faster:
>
> http://mathgate.info/cebrown/notes/barendregt.php
>
> No one can offer me a guarantee that if I only read "just the right
> part" I will attain the knowledge I seek.  Few people can even offer
> me help on the topic (though Rupert once offered to his help, which I
> evaluated to be nothing more than an opportunity to mock and ridicule
> on his part), and those that do can get frustrated that I am unable to
> reproduce their learning experience and that their help doesn't work
> for me.
>
> Well, the same problem someone has learning the lambda calculus can
> illustrate that acquiring knowledge in general is not just a matter of
> algorithm, process or mechanism.  And that learning from the bible is
> no different in that regard.
>
> Some people read the bible one time, and accept Christ as Lord and
> Savior!  Others never read it, hear a synopsis of the gospel from a
> friend or pastor, and accept Christ as Lord!  Others read it several
> times, get frustrated and give up not receiving Christ.  Some people
> read it their whole lives, go to seminary, get an advanced degree,
> become a professor of theology, and never receive Christ!  Others read
> it each and every day of their lives, and find it to be the very
> "pearl of great price"! :)
>
> I think understanding this is humbling to the human spirit.  The
> buoyant spirit of humanistic optimism that naively thinks "gosh, I can
> learn anything easily" is humbled.  The objective nature of reality is
> in a large degree opaque to us, even "simple" truths we can often find
> are beyond easy explanation.  An atheist reflected the same thing when
> he noted:

Unless the atheist is a physicist engaged in the study of matter, and
its demarcation, who cares what he thinks? Physics has an answer, it
is complex, but if you do the work (which as you point out is not
easy) it is clear.

> "What is matter?  i confess I can't tell.  I take a handful of earth,
> and in it I plant a seed, and the arrows of light from the sun fall
> upon it, and the dews moisten it, a little green shaft appears, and
> then a bud, and then a flower.  I know all this, but I do not know
> what causes it, any more than I know the origin of thought"
>

> So, how does this help you?!  Well, in regards to giving you an answer
> that says "do this, that and the other thing and I guarantee you will
> have the knowledge you seek" I cannot so answer, anymore than someone
> could guarantee if I just do X, then Y, then Z that I will then
> understand the lambda calculus.  But what I do have, I share:

If you cannot offer me anything then what is the point? The
conversation is a waste of time. The step that follows from "Human
thinking is fallible" for us is so radically that the resulting paths
share but one moment of middle ground (the starting point). To me
belief in God (howsoever constituted) is a step which ignores the
starting point "My thinking is fallible". With the fallible faculty
'we' construct an escape route in suggesting an external origin; in
the move the conclusion remains unquestioned - which is a violation of
rigorous thinking.

> "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
> And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
>
> http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/9.htm

Mystical blah.

> So my first questions, in response to your legitimate queries about
> reading the bible and not "getting it":
>
> * do you believe you have "the fear of the Lord"?
> * how important of an issue do you perceive these studies?
>   - only entertaining?
>   - only good for getting a laugh at the expense of those Christian "nutters"?
>   - mildly important, but then again, so are many other things?
>   - pretty important, but so are other things?
>   - THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE AFFECTING ME FOR ALL ETERNITY (<--
> that's my answer)

My starting point was the last - because pursuit of the truth
(howsoever constituted) is my raison d'etre. Nevertheless, I think
belief in God (god, and god(s)) to be mostly pointless hubris.

> Maybe talking with me more about it is helpful.  I hope so, and don't
> mean to frustrate legitimate inquiry.
>
> > If reality only offers, as evidence for God, the Bible then atheist I
> > will remain. If you did convince me that God (of the Bible) was real
> > then I would become an apostate and preach rebellion; for the only
> > noble, true, just, and good thing that could be done to the God of
> > Abraham is to kill him - and if impossible then to try. It is not a
> > deity worthy of worship.
>
> I disagree, Marc, and consider Him to be of the highest and most
> excellent moral nature.
>
> > Yes, you have a contrasting view and what is at stake is the reasoning
> > behind that view.
>
> > You wish me to come to yours; well... I do read the bible, have done
> > so in the past (was brought up Catholic), and will do so in the
> > future; and upon every reading the idea of the contents therein being
> > more than mythology becomes evermore ridiculous.
>
> > I accept nothing I am a skeptic. The only path that requires things be
> > taken without assumptions is the Aristotelian empiricism. Start with
> > the world and work from there - the world, the one including the
> > bible, does not lead to the conclusion that the Christian (or any
> > other) God is an actual entity that exists separately from being a
> > product of human imagination and writing.
>
> Ok, but understand that choosing untenable constraints could be one of
> your problems.  Someone might say "start only with a bicycle and $20
> and give me a route to bike that gets me from Houston, TX to Paris
> France" ... but there is no such route. :)
>
> You don't get to determine the pre-conditions of a successful journey.
>  You don't get to demand that the objective nature of reality fit into
> your presuppositions or preconceptions. Nor do I. :)
>
> If you start with empiricism, you start with a flawed inadequate constraint.
> If you start with skepticism, you start with a flawed inadequate constraint.

Explain.

> I think you will find serious inquiry humbling, and from a humanistic
> perspective unsatisfiable.  But this doesn't mean God does not exist,
> only that He is not deducible from a core set of logical propositions
> of your own choosing. :)

Explain.

> > I ask in all seriousness:
>
> > Why should the bible be taken 'seriously' as evidence?

The question remains unanswered.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the video link, Brock. I listened to the first fifth. They were
> civil with one another and that was a goo to hear.

Yea, I agree. :)

> In those opening dozen minutes the atheist was quick to point out the
> christian made many assertions (the world is created, for example), and not
> arguments. In the classic theistic arguments that's a conclusion, not a
> premise, but the Christian didn't bring them forth.
>
> 12:30 into it the atheist makes his first claim which can, and should, be
> questioned:
>
> "best method we have for understanding reality is the scientific method, by
> and large it's the single most reliable consistent self-correcting method
> for discerning truth now if there's some other way on finding out the truth
> about reality, of course we'd all be interested in knowing it"

Yes, the value judgment that says any particular method is "best" in
discerning truth is worth looking at closely. In particular, the
assessment is simply presupposed ("what could possibly be better?" is
a common response) ... but asking the question or making the statement
"I can't conceive of something better than science" doesn't
demonstrate science is the best, only that the individual is perhaps
not very good at conceiving other ways of discerning truth.

> Lot's of philosophy packed into that first sentence, and I was hoping the
> Christian would critically examine it, but he did not right then. Did he
> circle back to it later?

I don't think so, the rest of the interview went quickly from topic to
topic, my perspective is as soon as the Christian (Ray Comfort)
started making (arguably) compelling points the atheists would shift
topics leaving the previous one unresolved ("we're not talking about
THAT anymore, now we're talking about this ...").

I find that a common pattern, an atheist will ask "so what about faith
healing?", as soon as the Christian's responses start to zero in on a
specific and credible position, the atheist (or other atheist, I
notice they frequently seem to prefer to have more than one atheist
debating one Christian) will suddenly interrupt and shift gears to a
new topic: "Aren't people who accept the ontological argument stupid?"
... next thing, the Christian, making great headway in a discussion
about healing and faith, will find lots of roadblocks "we're not
talking about that anymore, we're talking about another way in which
you Christians are wrong ..." ...

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You keep saying the same ting that means little Brock

Thanks for sharing your color commentary, Ian. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Marc <mjhr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 6:09 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The bible is insufficient on two fronts:
>> > 1) The proposed evidence is not grounded in careful empirical
>> > observation of the universe (the one including us).
>>
>> Well, to rebut 1), one only need note that as empirical standards fail
>> to be adequate epistemological standards, so that the bible does (or
>> does not) conform to them doesn't make the bible insufficient, only
>> empiricism itself.
>
> You can 'note' it all you want, however, unless you outline some of
> these inadequacies noting is a waste of time - explanation is
> required.

Well, I note because it is a specific topic I've previously addressed
in detail. :)

Some examples:

http://groups.google.com/group/world_wide_with_god_minstry/msg/b69d055d79d6bf6e
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/3108efa6b1975819
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/84b4fc37f349475e

>> > Your propose the bible as evidence of God and his grace.
>> > I have a copy of that collection of texts (KJV), and on reading it
>> > have found in it nothing that reflects any truth.
>>
>> I have read the same text and concluded differently.
>
> So you attest, but I do not?

Or that two people can look at the exact same evidence and not arrive
at the same conclusion. :)

> The issue is exactly how you can think
> that, because I sure as hell do not see it... not even is it slightly
> possible that the entity/ force expressed in that translation is even
> a little bit good. So what I am misreading exactly?

Well, I don't specifically know you well enough to say what is
different between you and I in reading the text. I do believe that
the acquisition of knowledge isn't capably described by an appeal to
method or chain of reasoning, which is why I point out that "how" and
"what" are not sufficient to discuss "who".

If method or algorithm WERE adequate to describe knowledge
acquisition, then we would expect that any two people who read the
same text would acquire the same knowledge (presuming that both used
the same mechanism and/or chain of reasoning) ... but the fact that
different people read the same text and do not necessarily acquire the
identical knowledge indicates to me that the discussion is larger than
mechanism or chain of reasoning ...

>> Or more simply offer that the pejorative is not in regards to God, but
>> is instead in our human process of evaluation ... For example, two
>> different district attorneys, when presented with the evidence of a
>> crime, can legitimately go in different directions.  One can review
>> the material, evaluate it and choose to indict and prosecute, while
>> another might review the exact same material, evaluate the case and
>> not indict!
>
> You accept the limitation of human thinking, then why not accept that
> the limit may well apply to any and all thinking about God? That
> revelation is a result of human fault and fallibility rather than some
> external 'thing' expressing itself.

Well, I do. All the limitations of human thinking apply to my person.
But God is not similarly limited, and He is able to reveal knowledge
to a person in any manner He chooses. :)

>  > So the pejorative is not that God is profane, but that our
> evaluation
>> and/or assessments of Him and of the objective nature of reality are
>> very often profane!
>>
>> > So what then is the criteria for determining something has importance,
>> > worth, or is fact?
>>
>> Great question.  This is one of the foundational questions of the
>> science of epistemology.  So, while I am happy to provide the "best"
>> answers I can, I provide them humbly understanding the issues are not
>> simple, and recognizing the danger of over-simplification.
>
> Um... again I studied philosophy will do a phd in it (eventually) and
> this position is not clear.

Sorry, I am trying to say that it is a subtle question, and not likely
resolved in an adequate manner by a simple response. So, again:

>> Maybe this question should have its own thread ... :)

>> So, how does this help you?!  Well, in regards to giving you an answer
>> that says "do this, that and the other thing and I guarantee you will
>> have the knowledge you seek" I cannot so answer, anymore than someone
>> could guarantee if I just do X, then Y, then Z that I will then
>> understand the lambda calculus.  But what I do have, I share:
>
> If you cannot offer me anything then what is the point? The
> conversation is a waste of time.

Well, I simply said neither I, nor anyone else, could offer mechanism
or chain of reasoning as an adequate description of the means of
acquiring knowledge. :)

So, time to consider a focus on "what" and "how" to be myopic.

> The step that follows from "Human
> thinking is fallible" for us is so radically that the resulting paths
> share but one moment of middle ground (the starting point). To me
> belief in God (howsoever constituted) is a step which ignores the
> starting point "My thinking is fallible". With the fallible faculty
> 'we' construct an escape route in suggesting an external origin; in
> the move the conclusion remains unquestioned - which is a violation of
> rigorous thinking.

Well, perhaps not unquestioned so much as not demonstrated. But,
since not all knowledge is demonstrable, I don't consider it a
pejorative.

>
>> "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
>> And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
>>
>> http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/9.htm
>
> Mystical blah.

Or perhaps a concise way of indicating that there are relationships between:

* the LORD
* the fear of Him
* wisdom
* knowledge
* understanding

>> Ok, but understand that choosing untenable constraints could be one of
>> your problems.  Someone might say "start only with a bicycle and $20
>> and give me a route to bike that gets me from Houston, TX to Paris
>> France" ... but there is no such route. :)
>>
>> You don't get to determine the pre-conditions of a successful journey.
>>  You don't get to demand that the objective nature of reality fit into
>> your presuppositions or preconceptions. Nor do I. :)
>>
>> If you start with empiricism, you start with a flawed inadequate constraint.
>> If you start with skepticism, you start with a flawed inadequate constraint.
>
> Explain.

Well, let's start with empiricism. Previously:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/3108efa6b1975819
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/84b4fc37f349475e

Regards,

Brock

[Marc]

> > You can 'note' it all you want, however, unless you outline some of
> > these inadequacies noting is a waste of time - explanation is
> > required.
>
> Well, I note because it is a specific topic I've previously addressed
> in detail. :)
>
> Some examples:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/world_wide_with_god_minstry/msg/b69d05...http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/3108efa6b1...http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/84b4fc37f3...

Read over these and the topic is NOT addressed. Also the links therein
require I sign up to something (i.e. the Trinity Foundation). You will
need to explain why I should sign up to the site, you are more than
welcome to begin with a synopsis of the contents of the 'lectures' and
the argument expressed therein. Providing a link is NOT resolving a
problem!

> Well, I don't specifically know you well enough to say what is
> different between you and I in reading the text.  I do believe that
> the acquisition of knowledge isn't capably described by an appeal to
> method or chain of reasoning,  which is why I point out that "how" and
> "what" are not sufficient to discuss "who".

Who is not distinct in questioning from what. At best 'who' is merely
anthropomorphic; which makes it a specification of what. For example:
"Who did it?" = "What anthropomorphic entity (i.e. human) did
it?"

> If method or algorithm WERE adequate to describe knowledge
> acquisition, then we would expect that any two people who read the
> same text would acquire the same knowledge (presuming that both used
> the same mechanism and/or chain of reasoning) ... but the fact that
> different people read the same text and do not necessarily acquire the
> identical knowledge indicates to me that the discussion is larger than
> mechanism or chain of reasoning ...

> > You accept the limitation of human thinking, then why not accept that
> > the limit may well apply to any and all thinking about God? That
> > revelation is a result of human fault and fallibility rather than some
> > external 'thing' expressing itself.
>
> Well, I do.  All the limitations of human thinking apply to my person.
>  But God is not similarly limited, and He is able to reveal knowledge
> to a person in any manner He chooses. :)

Your fallibility is expressed in the thought that you are exalted.
Using the external narrative force of God to allow you to be such does
nothing to mitigate the "I am super-special" moment of human
fallibility. No human is special to anything other than humans nor are
we 'exalted' - all such thoughts are too human and too bound up in
hubris.

> >> Maybe this question should have its own thread ... :)
> >> So, how does this help you?!  Well, in regards to giving you an answer
> >> that says "do this, that and the other thing and I guarantee you will
> >> have the knowledge you seek" I cannot so answer, anymore than someone
> >> could guarantee if I just do X, then Y, then Z that I will then
> >> understand the lambda calculus.  But what I do have, I share:
>
> > If you cannot offer me anything then what is the point? The
> > conversation is a waste of time.
>
> Well, I simply said neither I, nor anyone else, could offer mechanism
> or chain of reasoning as an adequate description of the means of
> acquiring knowledge. :)

I disagree: empiricism + cognitive science + neurology + AI is
providing satisfying answers.

> So, time to consider a focus on "what" and "how" to be myopic.

Nothing exists that cannot be asked about with 'what' or 'how'. There
is no magic or mystery to existence. Your position is merely the 'god
of gaps' argument applied to particular areas you cannot see being
answered - your ignorance is not the fault of empiricism, the world,
or science. When between 2020 & 2030 we develop software that matches
and then outstrips us with respect to intelligence it will be because
of learning and adaptive algorithms that we are developing.

> > The step that follows from "Human
> > thinking is fallible" for us is so radically that the resulting paths
> > share but one moment of middle ground (the starting point). To me
> > belief in God (howsoever constituted) is a step which ignores the
> > starting point "My thinking is fallible". With the fallible faculty
> > 'we' construct an escape route in suggesting an external origin; in
> > the move the conclusion remains unquestioned - which is a violation of
> > rigorous thinking.
>
> Well, perhaps not unquestioned so much as not demonstrated.  But,
> since not all knowledge is demonstrable, I don't consider it a
> pejorative.

Knowledge not demonstrable is knowledge we should approach and re-
approach with the hammer of skepticism until we find a method of
demonstrating it. If we cannot then it MUST always be held in
suspicion.

> >> "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
> >> And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
>
> >>http://nasb.scripturetext.com/proverbs/9.htm
>
> > Mystical blah.
>
> Or perhaps a concise way of indicating that there are relationships between:
>
> * the LORD
> * the fear of Him
> * wisdom
> * knowledge
> * understanding

Remains Mystical blah.

> > Explain.
>
> Well, let's start with empiricism.  Previously:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/3108efa6b1...http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/84b4fc37f3...

As with previously... not explained.

[love&peace]

">You , Sir, are an indolent , ignorant oaf, and of little consequence
in a world in need of responsible people who forthrightly pursue a
meaningful education.

Self imposed ignorance does great violence to one's self the
perpetuation of ignorance is a crime against humanity>"

Once again,you have shown that you care less whether or not the
majority of the 'stupids' join you in your quest to save humanity from
ignorance and indolence. Were you so serious in your 'chosen task',
considering the fact that it might not be easy to make everyone to see
things your way at once, you would have been compelled by that
seriousness and genuine commitment to that 'task' to develop a better
vocabulary for the benefit of the stupid, indolent and ignorant who
are in the majority and who are actually sensitive to such foul
language due to nurture and culture- which is no fault of theirs. I
consider such oversight as selfish and most wicked of one who claim to
be among those who are championing the cause of a better humanity.

And,

"In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new
information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis
in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence
described in the above argument were found, for example, that would
justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under
consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond
all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional".

...,if such a theory has fancied your imagination as indicated here
then one would expect from you a more accommodating reaction to the
'theory' of 'God exists' than the vituperation that are encased in the
I-don't-care-what-you-think attitude you usually displayed when
reacting to comments of such nature. A contradiction indeed!

May be atheists in your category, like the fundamentalist religious
sects, don't care what people think about their mode of expression
and or interacting with others outside their faith. A defeatist
syndrome, it is!

On May 13, 9:58 am, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Observer
>
> [quote]
>
> lows us to Say God Does Not Exist
> There is No Role for God in Science, No Explanation that God can
> Provide
>
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> See More About:debating the existence of godgod does not exist
> Ads
> Become A Pastor
> Earn A Ministry Degree at Home Change The Direction of Your Lifewww.newburghseminary.com
> The True Jesus Christ
> What is your View on Jesus? In-Depth Facts of Jesus Christ.www.rcg.org
> The Unforgivable Sin
> Can You Commit It? What is the Unpardonable Sin? Explained Here.www.worldtocome.org
> Agnosticism / Atheism Ads
> God
> Does God Exist
> Existence of God
> Christian God
> Find God
> Ads
> Jesus: Hoax or Reality?
> Discover the Evidence From Scholars About Jesus' Claims to be God
> Y-Jesus.com
> Free K12 High School
> Online Public Schooling at Home from K12. 100% Tuition Free!www.K12.com
> A popular objection to atheists' arguments and critiques of theism is
> to insist that one's preferred god cannot be disproven — indeed, that
> science itself is unable to prove that God does not exist. This
> position depends upon a mistaken understanding of the nature of
> science and how science operates. In a very real and important sense,
> it is possible to say that, scientifically, God does not exist — just
> as science is able to discount the existence of a myriad of other
> alleged beings.
>
> What Can Science Prove or Disprove?
>
> To understand why "God does not exist" can be a legitimate scientific
> statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in
> the context of science. When a scientist says "God does not exist,"
> they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist,"
> "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does not exist on the moon."
>
> All such statements are casual short-hand for a more elaborate and
> technical statement: "this alleged entity has no place in any
> scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations,
> cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe any thing or
> force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the
> universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or
> useful."
>
> What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate
> statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any
> possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a
> provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or
> reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know.
> Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it
> demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but
> that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to
> "prove" something scientifically.
>
> Scientific Proof Against God
>
> In God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows That God Does Not
> Exist, Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the
> existence of God:
>
> Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
> Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective
> evidence for his existence.
> Look for such evidence with an open mind.
> If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
> If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable
> doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
> This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any
> alleged entity and is modified form of the argument from a lack-of-
> evidence: God, as defined, should produce evidence of some sort; if we
> fail to find that evidence, God cannot exist as defined. The
> modification limits the sort of evidence to that which can be
> predicted and tested via the scientific method.
>
> Certainty & Doubt in Science
>
> Nothing in science is proven or disproven beyond a shadow of any
> possible doubt. In science, everything is provisional. Being
> provisional is not a weakness or a sign that a conclusion is weak.
> Being provisional is a smart, pragmatic tactic because we can never be
> sure what we'll come across when we round the next corner. This lack
> of absolute certainty is a window through which many religious theists
> try to slip their god, but that's not a valid move.
>
> In theory, it may be possible that someday we will come across new
> information requiring or benefiting from some sort of "god" hypothesis
> in order to better make sense of the way things are. If the evidence
> described in the above argument were found, for example, that would
> justify a rational belief in the existence of the sort of god under
> consideration. It wouldn’t prove the existence of such a god beyond
> all doubt, though, because belief would still have to be provisional.
>
> By the same token, though, it may be possible that the same could be
> true of an infinite number of other hypothetical beings, forces, or
> other things which we might invent. The mere possibility of existing
> is one that applies to any and every possible god, but religious
> theists only try to use it for whatever god they happen to personally
> favor. The possibility for needing a "god" hypothesis applies equally
> as well to Zeus and Odin as it does to the Christian god; it applies
> equally well to evil or disinterested gods as it does to good gods.
> Thus even if we limit our consideration to the possibility of a god,
> ignoring every other random hypothesis, there's still no good reason
> to pick out any one god for favorable consideration.
>
> What Does "God Exists" Mean?
>
> What does it mean to exist? What would it mean if "God exists" were a
> meaningful proposition? For such a proposition to mean anything at
> all, it would have to entail that whatever "God" is, it must have some
> impact on the universe. In order for us to say that there is an impact
> on the universe, then there must be measurable and testable events
> which would best or only be explained by whatever this "God" is we are
> hypothesizing. Believers must be able to present a model of the
> universe in which some god is "either required, productive, or
> useful."
>
> This is obviously not the case. Many believers work hard trying to
> find a way to introduce their god into scientific explanations, but
> none have succeeded. No believer has been able to demonstrate, or even
> strongly suggest, that there are any events in the universe which
> requires some alleged "god" to explain. Instead, these constantly
> failing attempts end up reinforcing the impression that there is no
> "there" there — nothing for "gods" to do, no role for them to play,
> and no reason to give them a second thought. It's technically true
> that the constant failures don't mean that no one will ever succeed,
> but it's even more true that in every other situation where such
> failures are so consistent, we don't acknowledge any reasonable,
> rational, or serious reason to bother believing.
>
> [end quote]
>
> http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm
>
> Observer
>
> You , Sir, are an indolent , ignorant oaf, and of little consequence
> in a world in need of responsible people who forthrightly pursue a
> meaningful  education.
>
> Self imposed ignorance does great violence to one's self the
> perpetuation of ignorance is a crime against humanity.
>
> Psychonomist

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Psychonomist
>
> > > > On May 10, 3:19 pm, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 2:26 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Brock I will just make two comments.
>
> > > > > > > Did you read any of the written comments made below the video. did you
> > > > > > > notice that Ray Comfort does no always come over as Mr Nice Guy.
>
> > > > > > Well, Ian, some very important Christian doctrines are not always
> > > > > > perceived as "nice" by non-believers.   I've considered carefully for
> > > > > > years that folks like you and others don't like being told
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Neil Kelsey]

Do you believe the earth (complete with life, including humans) was made within six days from the beginning of the Big Bang? Are you going to try to tell me that's just a "metaphor"? Are you going to quibble about what a day is? Are you going to redefine God beyond recognition? 

And you didn't answer my question. 

 

> > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.

> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Rupert]

On May 11, 6:09 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Marc <mjhrob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brock on numerous occasions you claim to seek polite interaction...
> > but I remain skeptical of this (given my reading of your numerous
> > posts with others and responses to my questions).
>
> That's ok, I can disagree with someone without being disagreeable. :)
>
> > To begin you cite the Bible as evidence for God.
> > This is fine, no problem.
>
> > But what then happens, in a meaningful search for truth, is an
> > evaluation of the evidence.
>
> I agree that between the states of "evidence" and "proof" lies the
> process of "evaluation".

>
> > The bible is insufficient on two fronts:
> > 1) The proposed evidence is not grounded in careful empirical
> > observation of the universe (the one including us).
>
> Well, to rebut 1), one only need note that as empirical standards fail
> to be adequate epistemological standards, so that the bible does (or
> does not) conform to them doesn't make the bible insufficient, only
> empiricism itself.
>

> > 2) If the God within the texts where real then he would not be worthy
> > of trust/faith; he is a cruel and petty <profanity>.
>
> I disagree, the bible indicates God is a holy and high being of every
> kind of moral and ethical excellence. :)
>
> > So here is where it stands between us:
>

> > Your propose the bible as evidence of God and his grace.
> > I have a copy of that collection of texts (KJV), and on reading it
> > have found in it nothing that reflects any truth.
>

> I have read the same text and concluded differently.

>
> > Well... beyond the truth that the God of Abraham, as an entity spoken
> > of within the bible, is a petty <profanity>.
>
> > Here you will suggest that 'I' am not the criteria for what is of
> > importance, fact, or worth.
>

> Or more simply offer that the pejorative is not in regards to God, but
> is instead in our human process of evaluation ... For example, two
> different district attorneys, when presented with the evidence of a
> crime, can legitimately go in different directions.  One can review
> the material, evaluate it and choose to indict and prosecute, while
> another might review the exact same material, evaluate the case and
> not indict!
>

> So the pejorative is not that God is profane, but that our evaluation
> and/or assessments of Him and of the objective nature of reality are
> very often profane!
>
> > So what then is the criteria for determining something has importance,
> > worth, or is fact?
>
> Great question.  This is one of the foundational questions of the
> science of epistemology.  So, while I am happy to provide the "best"
> answers I can, I provide them humbly understanding the issues are not
> simple, and recognizing the danger of over-simplification.
>

> Maybe this question should have its own thread ... :)
>

This is not true. I once observed you cite a text about the lambda
calculus as if you were trying to get yourself some intellectual
respectability for being able to understand such an advanced
mathematics text. I asked you a basic question about the concepts
therein to test your understanding, and as I predicted you were unable
to answer. That was for the purpose of mocking and ridiculing you,
yes. People who pompously pretend to be able to understand texts which
they do not deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

I am more than happy to try to help you understand the text if I can
be of any assistance.

[Rupert]

How would you go about critiquing the atheist's claim?

[Neil Kelsey]

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:53:44 PM UTC-7, Brock wrote:

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the video link, Brock. I listened to the first fifth. They were
> civil with one another and that was a goo to hear.

Yea, I agree. :)

> In those opening dozen minutes the atheist was quick to point out the
> christian made many assertions (the world is created, for example), and not
> arguments. In the classic theistic arguments that's a conclusion, not a
> premise, but the Christian didn't bring them forth.
>
> 12:30 into it the atheist makes his first claim which can, and should, be
> questioned:
>
> "best method we have for understanding reality is the scientific method, by
> and large it's the single most reliable consistent self-correcting method
> for discerning truth now if there's some other way on finding out the truth
> about reality, of course we'd all be interested in knowing it"

Yes, the value judgment that says any particular method is "best" in
discerning truth is worth looking at closely.  In particular, the
assessment is simply presupposed ("what could possibly be better?" is
a common response) ... but asking the question or making the statement
"I can't conceive of something better than science" doesn't
demonstrate science is the best, only that the individual is perhaps
not very good at conceiving other ways of discerning truth.

It was a comparison of discerning truth by science with discerning truth by faith, and faith has been shown to be much less reliable than science. Faith has you believing that the truth is that a virgin gave birth, the sun stood still in the sky, dead guys come back to life, a flood of water covered the entire earth, the earth (complete with humans) formed during the first six days after the universe began, and all sorts of other things that have been proved to be false, even if you don't understand why or are in denial about it. 

> Lot's of philosophy packed into that first sentence, and I was hoping the
> Christian would critically examine it, but he did not right then. Did he
> circle back to it later?

I don't think so, the rest of the interview went quickly from topic to
topic, my perspective is as soon as the Christian (Ray Comfort)
started making (arguably) compelling points the atheists would shift
topics leaving the previous one unresolved ("we're not talking about
THAT anymore, now we're talking about this ...").

I find that a common pattern, an atheist will ask "so what about faith
healing?", as soon as the Christian's responses start to zero in on a
specific and credible position, the atheist (or other atheist, I
notice they frequently seem to prefer to have more than one atheist
debating one Christian) will suddenly interrupt and shift gears to a
new topic: "Aren't people who accept the ontological argument stupid?"
... next thing, the Christian, making great headway in a discussion
about healing and faith, will find lots of roadblocks "we're not
talking about that anymore, we're talking about another way in which
you Christians are wrong ..." ...

How come it's okay for you to shift topics but it's not okay for others? 

 

Regards,

Brock 2000

 

I will edit any reply you're going to make since you edit my posts.

[love&peace]

And what if I answered the way you preempted above? If I explained God
this way and you said you did not understand then I should oblige you
with another explanation.

> And you didn't answer my question.

I answered your question with a question that adequately resolved your
'quandary'.

> > > > > > > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > > > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

[Neil Kelsey]

Meaningless gibberish isn't an answer to my questions.

 

> And you didn't answer my question.

I answered your question with a question

Which. as we all know, isn't an answer. Didn't your mommy teach you that? 

2nd attempt: Is it intelligent to cling to a falsehood out of spite? It's a simple yes or no answer. 

 

that adequately resolved your
'quandary'. 

 

1. What "quandary"?

2. Your evasion of my question(s) didn't resolve anything, except that you're obviously trying to avoid answering. Which means, of course, that your answer to my question ("Is it intelligent to cling to a falsehood out of spite?") is "yes." It is, of course, the sensible answer, but you can't admit it without undermining your religious belief, hence the evasions.   

> > > > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.

> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > > > > > > > atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.