Saturday, July 01, 2006

That Funky White Boy

Marky Mark has teemed up with the funky bunch to reform the unholy alliance Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch. Now, those funky-debunkies are at it again - playing who can give the worst argument against Christianity. Well, at least they can dance.

Anyway, the esteemed John Loftus (note: I did not call him John-boy) posted something from Marky Mark's blog entitled: God Doesn't Work. What he posted was a fine piece of how not to argue, called, "Insure He Gets To Heaven."

Basically, the premise is that we should shoot all the infants in the world so as to ensure they get to heaven.

Now in the comments section the funky bunch started in with their laudatory comments of this fine piece of argumentation.

It was none other than D-dizzle Morgizzle who gave the first shout out; what what! He bemoans,

"As sick as it is, the common Calvinist objection (I've heard Manata state it explicitly) is that "there is no guarantee that infants are elected" and thus abortion doesn't prevent hellbound souls, after all...

Yeah, some God they worship."


1. Why is this "sick?" In fact, D-dizzle has argued that it's okay for mothers to murder their unborn children, as long as it's early enough in the pregnancy. Is he arbitrary? For shizzle.

2. And, yes, the claim is that "all elect infants dying in infancy" will go to heaven. Indeed, there is not one verse in the Bible that tells us that all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven.

3. The unstated premise is that "God is wrong for sending infants to hell because their innocent." Once we see the unstated premise we can see that this position simply begs the question against the Christian worldview. If we restate this argument, then, it looks like this: "If we assume that portions of Christianity are wrong then we can show how God is a big meany."

4. Lastly, he points out what us Christians have always wanted people to agree with. We don't worship God, or believe in Christianity, because it fits some soft, humanistic, can't we all just get along, pie in the sky bye and bye, mentality.

This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah. And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker, has told us:

"A strong clue that a person argues from a weak position is that character, rather than content, is addressed." -Barker, Loosing Faith in Faith, p.22


As we proceed I'd just like to point out that the west syde is the best syde, you better recognize. The more we critique the funky-debunkies the more we see how much their posts stunkies.

Then, a Christian interjected and pointed out that man does not have the right to murder. In response to this, Marky Mark himself saw fit to grace this virtual dance floor with his funky moves, hip hop hooray, ho, ay, ho....

In response to the claim that we are not allowed to murder Marky Mark rights,

"Here's the theme in a nut-shell.

Lets say you were a person in hell, wouldn't you wish someone did whatever it took to get to heaven, even kill you at birth? If it's true that this life on earth is just a *blink* compared to eternity. Being killed as an infant would be infinitely better than an eternity in hell."


1. Notice how he doesn't even address the claim that it's wrong to murder? His original argument was that we *should* shoot infants in the head since that gets them to heaven. He is countered with the moral claim that we *shouldn't.* His response to this is to bring in a third party and ask, "wouldn't you have wanted someone to murder you?" I mean, even if the third party would have, does that make it right?

2. This assumes people in hell will want to be in heaven, with God. Actually, no one in hell will ever want to be in heaven with God. They might not want the punishment to stop. They might think it's a horrible place. They might wish they were somewhere else. But it's simply ignorance of basic Christian doctrine that sinners would want to spend everlasting life worshipping God. They hated God on earth and will hate him for eternity.

3. How does he know what people will wish in hell?

4. His solution is to send one soul to heaven while another goes to hell for murder. or, does he think we can just murder infants and then repent, do it again, repent... If so, this is just another example of how theologically messed up all these so-called ex-Christians were. They almost always held to an easy believism.

He continues,

"I really didn't consider the "Elect" issue when I created it, but that is an extremely interesting twist that I'll admit I missed. I come from a stone cambell background, so that concept, that of the "Elect" is a bit foreign to me, and might I add, must be really hard to reconcile with the bible."


1. Yeah, he "missed" the refutation of his entire assumption, along with the other refutation of his argument - that people can not murder others.

2. Well, another dispensational, touchy-feely, anti-intellectual, Arminian, creedless, NT only, doctrine doesn't matter (just unity), Christian bites the dust.

3. Really hard to reconcile with the Bible? Were we going to get an argument for this, or just an ad hoc assertion thrown out to save your theory?

4. Maybe this apostate would like to test his metal against the wealth of biblical and philosophical arguments in favor of God's sovereign predestination of all facts and his pleasure to elect sinners by grace, through faith, on the basis of the active and passive obedience of Christ alone. Note, it is his *pleasure* to do so. God doesn't owe anyone salvation.

So, it's time for Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch to exit the stage. I mean, even THIS GUY gives a better rap that you all. Peace out, word to your mother.

10 comments:

  1. Manata: This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah. And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker, has told us: "A strong clue that a person argues from a weak position is that character, rather than content, is addressed." -Barker, Loosing Faith in Faith, p.22

    This is what you call good reasoning skills? I'll just point it out here for laughter, for that's all I need to do. :-)

    What'll be even funnier is if you defend the reasoning proceses here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What up G?

    I fail to see how your comment refuted the substance of my post??

    Why did I fail to see that?

    Oh, that's right, because you offered nothing substantial.

    Basically, your motto is: Hey, if I can't beat the argument I'll pick on some obscure portion of the post and argue that till the cows come home, hoping everyone forgets to remember the main purpose of the post.

    Anyway, D-dizzle Morgizle *simply* offered ad hominems. He just called Jehovah a big meany. If you're referring to my ad hominems then you miss that I *included* substance. So, one could remove my ad hominems and still have the meat of the argument, if you remove Morgizzle's then you'd have *nothing.*

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well you can be forgiven of murder right?

    Kill them then repent, and ask forgiveness.

    It's so simple.

    Two souls in heaven, they won.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Besides it's just art for christs sake.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Personally, I'd say it was art for Satan's sake.

    And as for 'just art', does he believe art has no meaning?

    And my reading of Morgan's position seems to indicate that he believes it's okay to kill very young infants after birth provided you get parental consent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You guys are loopy.

    But I've been there.

    It's cool

    ReplyDelete
  7. Paul,

    From now on I want to be referred to as J-Lo, OK? Thanks, homey...

    ReplyDelete
  8. First, a clarification is in order: this topic came up, and I quoted Paul, in reference to abortion, not infanticide, but, you guys have a bit of a moral issue in declaring that infanticide is always sin, don't you? (eg 1 Sam 15:3, Num 31:17-8)

    1. Why is this "sick?" In fact, D-dizzle has argued that it's okay for mothers to murder their unborn children, as long as it's early enough in the pregnancy. Is he arbitrary? For shizzle.
    Hmmm, well, Paul, perhaps my "arbitriness" stems from a couple of things which you appear blissfully unaware of:
    a) God is supposed to be perfectly merciful and gracious, no one claims humans are perfectly anything [and no one claims they need to be except Christians]
    b) Using the term "murder" as you have here is rhetoric. I can just as easily declaim that God "murders" over 40% of all fetuses via natural abortion, since in your worldview, your sovereign God chooses for it to happen that they die. Thus your God "murders" far more fetuses than mothers do. Let's not descend into such rhetorical platitudes.
    c) There is just a *bit* of a difference between ending something's life and sending it into an eternal hell, consider:
    i) A fetus is not self-aware, so that when they die, whether by natural [God-ordained] or terminative abortion, there is no awareness of this fact...is the same true with hell?
    ii) The process of death itself is temporal, and almost always brief. Your God sends infants to an infinite/eternal hell
    iii) The process of death may or may not be painful, but let's rank the pain of physical death as a 1 on a scale of 10^1000, where hell = 10^1000

    Arbitrary, indeed.

    2. And, yes, the claim is that "all elect infants dying in infancy" will go to heaven. Indeed, there is not one verse in the Bible that tells us that all infants who die in infancy will go to heaven.
    The claim was actually regarding, "won't aborting fetuses ensure their place in heaven?" To which you answer "no, not necessarily, some fetuses are not elect, and so go to hell" If there is a verse you can point to which clarifies this point, I would love to read it. I am not claiming there isn't one, but I certainly am not aware of any verse in the Bible which deals with unborn children with respect to their fate in the afterlife.

    3. The unstated premise is that "God is wrong for sending infants to hell because their innocent." Once we see the unstated premise we can see that this position simply begs the question against the Christian worldview. If we restate this argument, then, it looks like this: "If we assume that portions of Christianity are wrong then we can show how God is a big meany."
    Um, no. The premises of Xianity are:
    1) Humans sin aganist God
    2) God is just in sending sinful humans to hell
    3) Therefore some humans go to hell [not dealing with the "elect" here for simplification]

    The argument that was made:
    1) Fetuses do not sin against God
    2) God is not just in sending sinless fetuses to hell
    3) Therefore no fetuses go to hell

    The refutation you offered is:
    1) Only the elect avoid hell
    2) Not all fetuses are elect
    3) Some fetuses go to hell

    Of course, the way to resolve this is to explain how "original sin" is attached to election of a fetus, how it has some kind of intrinsic sin value which is justly met with the wrath of God. Personally, I see you descending into some pretty obscure interpretations to support your contention. The idea that fetuses and infants have some sort of willful sin is obvious nonsense. So, original sin is then all you have to go on, and aside from poetic references to David's "i was conceived in sin" I challenge you to substantiate your P2.

    4. Lastly, he points out what us Christians have always wanted people to agree with. We don't worship God, or believe in Christianity, because it fits some soft, humanistic, can't we all just get along, pie in the sky bye and bye, mentality.
    I point out what Christians have always wanted to avoid facing -- that this interpretation of their God is one of an immoral monster, in that it sends some fetuses/infants to an eternal darkness, to which Paul replies in Romans 9 only "who are you?" Without examining the truth value of your premises, it is quite clear that most people have enough moral fiber to reject your interpretation, and you know it, and that is why only 1% of 1% of Christians would ever make such a claim. That you would worship such a being belies your own moral vacuity.

    This is also an ad-hominem against Jehovah.
    Actually it's a critique of your worldview. Equivocating your interpretation as "God" is telling.

    And, as Dan Barker, an ex-debunker
    ?? ex?? Is he still not an atheist?

    "A strong clue that a person argues from a weak position is that character, rather than content, is addressed." -Barker, Loosing Faith in Faith, p.22
    When you make a claim that "God is good" and "God is merciful" and "God is gracious" and "God is loving", you set yourself up for reductio ad absurdum concerning such conclusions as "Therefore, God sends some fetuses to hell". In these cases, you are making specific claims about the character of God. For me to argue against your conclusions, without disputing the truth of your premises, is hardly ad hominem, it's just showing how absurd it is to believe that God could simultaneously be just, merciful, good, loving, and send fetuses to an eternal hell. You don't have to reject your premises, just rethink your conclusions. In that sense, I'm saying that your logic is flawed, not God's character...so, no ad homs at all.

    So, would you prefer I call you "Paulie"? I prefer Daniel, and if I can be called Daniel, rather than "Polly the parakeet" or some permutation of Snoop Dogg's ebonics-talk, I would appreciate it, and reciprocate with "Paul". I subscribe to "tit for tat", you see.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well at least I got a cool name out of this. And I am kind of funky, at least my underwear is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well... (in best South Wales accent)
    Daniel, old man, with reference to the fate of infants, I respectfully suggest that the reason we have no absolutely clear answer is to prevent some maniac going round killing infants to ensure they go to heaven. After all, we can see someone's got that idea (but fortunately isn't a loony).

    Now, on miscarriages (or natural abortions), we may say that was God's will to take the child to Himself before it came into this world. But we may not assume that, therefore, we do not need to improve care for premature babies, and thus stop a child's 'best hope for heaven'. Remember, not so long ago, premature babies who can now be kept alive would have been classed as miscarriages.

    ReplyDelete