In politics, a gaffe is defined by when a gov’t official accidentally says what he really thinks. You’re not supposed to let the electorate in on what you truly plan do to. At best, you save the bad news until after the election.
We see the same dynamic in atheism. This accounts for the ironic spectacle of militant atheists who express outrage if Christians depict atheism on its own terms. That’s “insensitive” (or worse).
Atheism is unspeakable when the consequences count. And death is one of those things where the consequences count.
Atheistic bravado in the face of death is shaken when the decedent is a friend. Or when he dies prematurely. That cuts too close to home.
Francis Schaeffer famously argued that atheism is unlivable. It’s not a creed that individuals can consistently live by or live out. They fudge. They cheat.
Infidels ordinarily strike a truth-for-truth’s-sake pose. But when issue at hand happens to be a dead atheist, then you’re not supposed to speak the truth–for the sake of the living. How dare you depict the fate of an atheist in atheistic terms! Even though atheism is true (so we’re told), you should spare the feelings of the living by tactfully acting as if atheism is false. Nothing could be ruder than to share the truth when the implications actually stick. When they impact the hearts and lives of real people.
Steve, in our previous discussion I seem to remember you conceding that there are times when it's best to just be silent about the implications of one's worldview. For example, if you were presiding over the funeral of an unbeliever who was raped to death, would you make a point of stressing to the deceased's relatives that she is probably going to hell because she died in unbelief?
ReplyDeleteI think the sentiment behind the outrage is that the immediate aftermath of a death or broader tragedy is not the appropriate time to pontificate about the implications of one's worldview, even if at other times it is appropriate.
"Even though atheism is true (so we’re told), you should spare the feelings of the living by tactfully acting as if atheism is false."
ReplyDeleteOdd, that.
JD said:
ReplyDelete---
I think the sentiment behind the outrage is that the immediate aftermath of a death or broader tragedy is not the appropriate time to pontificate about the implications of one's worldview, even if at other times it is appropriate.
---
There is no time that justifies hypocrisy, JD. And there's no better time to point it out then the time the atheist will actually *FEEL* it.
The atheist can insulate himself from "righteous indignation" when it's a "normal" day. But what good is his worldview if he must jettison it as soon as the rubber meets the road? Someone has to open his eyes to this.
Steve if accepting that the atheist view be correct.Would you considder it completly fair game to accidently say what an atheist thinks when a atheist feels its the consequences that count.And strike a truth for truth sake around Christians having just lost a dearly loved one who very recently passed away, reminding them that life was only for the living and that they should need to quickly get used to not ever seeing their loved one again.And maybe make it well known you personally found this tremendously funny,specially seeing the Christian had faithfully hoped they would some day see their loved one again.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think Steve.Would you say this should be considdered very thoughtful and normal practice which is quite ok or would you suggest it might be slightly uncaring or even a little uncouth.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter.
JD,
ReplyDeletei) Death is actually an optimal time to rub in the bitter implications of a false worldview. That's a moment when folks aren't play-acting. Death hits them hard. It's real to them.
But as we move away from the immediacy of the event, it's easy to resume the play-acting.
ii) In addition, the indignation in this case is obviously feigned. Many of the angry commenters didn't even know Pulliam personally. They simply read his blog.
They are presuming to be offended on behalf of the relatives, and exploiting the relatives to shield their worldview from scrutiny.
Taniwha,
ReplyDeletei) I didn't justify my remarks as a truth-for-truth's sake policy.
Rather, this is a situation in which there is a practical value in telling the truth. Making an atheist face the ugly, unmitigated consequences of his outlook at a time when it hurts. When his radical chic belief system collides with harsh, unforgiving reality.
Once the pain passes, he can go back to his consume and make-up. He can go back to pretending that atheism doesn't exact a personal price. Or that even if it does, there's something noble about his costly sacrifice.
ii) And I'm also not intimidated by folks who brag about moral relativism, then indulge in heated moralizing the moment they feel slighted.
I'm not seeing these "ugly, unmitigated consequences" of atheism as it relates to the death of friends and family. I've lost loved ones when I was a christian, and I've lost loved ones after I deconverted and became an atheist and frankly, it's been easier as an atheist. I've never, since deconverting, pussyfooted around the subject either.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the posts and comments for the last couple weeks, y'all seem like you are simply criticising what you think atheists believe and how you think they act as opposed to how we really believe and act.
steve said: JD,
ReplyDeletei) Death is actually an optimal time to rub in the bitter implications of a false worldview. That's a moment when folks aren't play-acting. Death hits them hard. It's real to them.
Thats a very interesting concept Steve .The optimal time to rub in the bitter implications of a false worldview.Striking while the iron is hot so to speak.Yes i agree that can be really hard hitting.
This could be quite a valuable tool to use.Would you suggest maybe it could even possibly be good tactics for some atheist type groups to start gathering at funeral church services hitting Christians hard with reminding them that their faith wasnt going to help anything much.And that they should simply try to getting used to never ever seeing their loved ones even again and just get over it.Kind of a lot like the Westboro Baptist effect.I can now see your type of thinking now of how this very modern type of thinking could easily see a whole new style of debate surrounding these very important issues, being ushered into practice at some stage.
Rather, this is a situation in which there is a practical value in telling the truth. Making an atheist face the ugly, unmitigated consequences of his outlook at a time when it hurts. When his radical chic belief system collides with harsh, unforgiving reality.
Yes Steve i fully i agree when things are hurting is always when most people are far more vulnerable.Harsh unforgiving reality is what they need to be hearing
My original post was framed in terms of Richard Dawkins' characterization of human nature. Do you think he's a closet Christian?
ReplyDeleteAh, and of course not. Quotes would be nice.
ReplyDelete"Death is actually an optimal time to rub in the bitter implications of a false worldview."
ReplyDeleteSo you're a follower of Fred Phelps?
Barefoot Bum said:
ReplyDeleteIf a God were to exist, my ethical intuitions would carry as much information about what God wants as yours do, and we're back to meta-ethical subjective relativism.
Presumably, if a God were to exist, Barefoot Bum's ethical intuitions would carry as much information about what God wants as Phred Felps' do, and we're back to meta-ethical subjective relativism.
I mean, as BB said, "Of course it's personal preference. Personal preference is what meta-ethical subjective relativism is all about."
The Bum has also not expended the briefest amount of time considering the differences between Triablogue and Felps. One wonders why he even commented, except his obvious emotion answers the question.
Peace,
Rhology
"...living organisms and their bodies are best seen as machines programmed by the genes to propagate those very same genes. In that sense we are gene machines. But it is not intended to be at all a demeaning or belittling statement."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html
Also see here: http://www.iwise.com/UJGrg
This could be quite a valuable tool to use.Would you suggest maybe it could even possibly be good tactics for some atheist type groups to start gathering at funeral church services hitting Christians hard with reminding them that their faith wasnt going to help anything much.
ReplyDeleteDid Steve Hays have a gathering at Ken's funeral that I didn't know about?
Jonathan quoting Dawkins:
ReplyDelete"...living organisms and their bodies are best seen as machines programmed by the genes to propagate those very same genes. In that sense we are gene machines. But it is not intended to be at all a demeaning or belittling statement."
Of course it's not demeaning or belittling according to Dawkins. To demean or belittle someone would entail people can be belittled or demeaned in the first place. But Dawkins doesn't think such a thing is possible. In fact, thanks to the Dawkins website you cite, I came across this little gem from him: "Richard Dawkins: The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
Thank you for the quote Jonathan. I guess what I don't understand is why it's "play-acting" to spout a dissertation into every aspect and implication of one's belief in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, a Christian wouldn't lovingly pat a widow on the shoulder and say "I sure hope he wasn't a false convert".
How is saying something like "We were all lucky to have had the time we did with Tommy and he had a good life" acting as if atheism is false?
Should be "...why it's "play-acting" to not spout a dissertation..."
ReplyDeleteTANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete“Would you suggest maybe it could even possibly be good tactics for some atheist type groups to start gathering at funeral church services hitting Christians hard with reminding them that their faith wasnt going to help anything much.And that they should simply try to getting used to never ever seeing their loved ones even again and just get over it.Kind of a lot like the Westboro Baptist effect.I can now see your type of thinking now of how this very modern type of thinking could easily see a whole new style of debate surrounding these very important issues, being ushered into practice at some stage.”
If you suffer from such profound intellectual confusion, I’m not sanguine about my ability to clear your mental fog.
i) I was holding the atheist to the ramifications of his own worldview.
ii) You are attempting some sort of analogy. But what do you think is analogous?
a) If your comparison is assuming, from a secular standpoint, that Christian survivors won’t see their departed loved ones again because there is no afterlife, that wouldn’t be a case of holding Christians to their own worldview. Rather, that would be imposing a contrary worldview on the mourners.
b) If, on the other hand, your comparison is assuming a Christian viewpoint, then there’s no general presumption that the Christian survivors will never see their departed loved ones again.
So your forced analogy is fundamentally disanalogous, however we parse it.
c) Pace the Westboro cult, there’s absolutely no presumption that soldiers killed in action are hellbound. That would depend on whether or not the soldier was a Christian. And it’s my impression that Christians are disproportionately represented in the armed forces.
iii) There is also an undertone of disapproval in your comments even though you have failed to lay a moral foundation for your disapproval. So you’re begging the question.
“Yes Steve i fully i agree when things are hurting is always when most people are far more vulnerable.Harsh unforgiving reality is what they need to be hearing.”
Actually, many a minister has used the occasion of a funeral to remind the audience that we should make peace with our Maker before it’s too late. There’s nothing like an open casket ceremonial to drive home that point.
LARRY, A.K.A. THE BAREFOOT BUM SAID:
“So you're a follower of Fred Phelps?”
You don’t help your cause with such unintelligent comparisons. Phelps is the one who’s promoting a false worldview. Therefore, your comparison backfires.
RYAN ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete"How is saying something like 'We were all lucky to have had the time we did with Tommy and he had a good life" acting as if atheism is false?'"
Try dealing with the actual terms of my "Dead robots" post.
It's revealing how many atheists are deeply offended by atheism. That's not my problem–that's their problem.
OK, just read that weird blurb. I think the issue may be that many atheists are offended by what you misunderstand atheism to be. But either way, that brings me back to my point about 1) you criticizing only a misunderstanding of atheism and 2) even if that was an accurate account of how we view ourselves (survival machines), how is it dishonest or "play-acting" to not go into every aspect and implication of one's belief in certain situations? Like I said, a Christian typically wouldn't bring up that a dead husband might very well have been a false convert to the widow even though it's part of your theology.
ReplyDeleteThe whole series of posts on the topics of atheism, death, and personal cruelty was not prompted by Rhology pointing out the "harsh realities" of an atheistic worldview. And all of the complaints about how atheists are inconsistent when they accuse others of being immoral are beside the point. The only relevant issue is this: was it right for Rhology to post his comment where he did, when he did?
ReplyDeleteIn Rhology's defense, any of Ken's family who might read his comment will likely write him off as an insensitive jerk and not be influenced much one way or the other regarding their beliefs.
RYAN ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete"OK, just read that weird blurb. I think the issue may be that many atheists are offended by what you misunderstand atheism to be. But either way, that brings me back to my point about 1) you criticizing only a misunderstanding of atheism..."
You keep asserting that without a supporting argument.
"and 2) even if that was an accurate account of how we view ourselves (survival machines)..."
How does that misunderstand atheism when that comes straight from Dawkins? Does Dawkins misunderstand atheism? Are atheists offended by his misunderstanding?
"...how is it dishonest or 'play-acting' to not go into every aspect and implication of one's belief in certain situations?"
The implications of atheism for death when someone dies are quite relevant to the situation.
"Like I said, a Christian typically wouldn't bring up that a dead husband might very well have been a false convert to the widow even though it's part of your theology."
i) Now you're comparing uncertainty with certainty. If atheism is true, then there's no afterlife. That's a certainty. (At least on the standard, physicalist version of atheism.)
ii) You're also assuming that it would be inappropriate to say certain things to mourners. But since atheism undermines moral realism, that, too, is another case of play-acting.
DEAN DOUGH SAID:
ReplyDelete"The whole series of posts on the topics of atheism, death, and personal cruelty was not prompted by Rhology pointing out the 'harsh realities' of an atheistic worldview. And all of the complaints about how atheists are inconsistent when they accuse others of being immoral are beside the point. The only relevant issue is this: was it right for Rhology to post his comment where he did, when he did?"
My original post (and subsequent installments) was independent of Alan's post. I wasn't even aware of his post when I originally did mine. I simply went over to DC that morning, saw the announcement, and wrote a brief response.
Does Dawkins misunderstand atheism?
ReplyDeleteProbably not his own atheism, and I'm sure many atheists view are informed by him, but it's probably fair to say there are as many if not more versions of atheism then there are versions of christianity. You folks love focusing on Dawkins, but he doesn't speak for every atheist. I do, however agree with his full statement, the one that starts with “When I say that human beings are just gene machines, one shouldn't put too much emphasis on the word "just."…”. That’s an important bit of context. Obviously there’s more to it.
If atheism is true, then there's no afterlife.
Well, not necessarily, but I tend to agree with your statement. But I'm still not seeing your point. "Tommy had a good life, we were lucky to have known him" or some variation is intellectually honest to my beliefs as they relate to an afterlife. But it's not dishonest to not say "Tommy is now worm food, you'll never see him again, MUHAHAHAHAHA". Both statements are true (although the maniacal laugh is unnecessary), but the second is inappropriate in most funereal situations, and that’s by most standards (no need for a supernatural standard), it’s just as inappropriate in most funereal situations as someone telling a Christians widow that her husband could have been a false convert. Both statements are facts, the second is a fact that it’s a possibility.
Ryan said:
ReplyDelete---
(no need for a supernatural standard)
---
Who says there's no need for a supernatural standard? What if I choose to base my morality on sadism? You've just cut off any ability to critique that position.
What if I choose to base my morality on sadism?
ReplyDeleteMany people do, although "choose" is not the best word.
When contemplating morality, just replace the word "god" with "society" and you get the same results.
Granted, there are different societies, sub-cultures, family units, ethnic and religious influences of all sort, etc... all interacting and conflicting, it's a big mess, no doubt. But that's what we observe of morality in reality, a mess, no?
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou're all turned around. You've just killed your own point.
Ryan said:
ReplyDelete---
...it's a big mess, no doubt
---
Tell me again why there's no need for a supernatural standard!
And if your view is just one more fragment of a giant mess, why should I concern myself for even a second with whether or not I don't live up to your standards?
Essentially, your argument is this: "I don't like it. Therefore, obey me."
I respond: you can stick it.
Now what arbitrary whiffle bat are you going to swing at me next?
why should I concern myself for even a second with whether or not I don't live up to your standards?
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure you shouldn't. Just like I shouldn't concern myself with yours. And it is yours.
The need for something has less then nothing to do with the reality of something. You may wish there was a cosmic universal standard, but that doesn't make it so.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteSo is there a standard that Steve should aspire to? If so, what is it and why should he aspire to it?
So is there a standard that Steve should aspire to?
ReplyDelete"should" is really up to you. Obviously there are consequences to not aspiring to your society/nation/state/family's standard. But again, that's really up to you.
RYAN ANDERSON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Like I said, a Christian typically wouldn't bring up that a dead husband might very well have been a false convert to the widow even though it's part of your theology."
i) I haven't said anything to Pulliam's relatives one way or the other.
ii) A better example would be the case of a drug addict who dies from an overdose. It would be appropriate to use that tragedy as a cautionary example to forewarn others against repeating his mistakes.
"Well, not necessarily, but I tend to agree with your statement. But I'm still not seeing your point. 'Tommy had a good life, we were lucky to have known him" or some variation is intellectually honest to my beliefs as they relate to an afterlife."
i) According to atheism, you were blindly programmed to feel the loss of a friend or family member. Blind natural selection cultivates a sense of in-group empathy as a survival trait. It thereby fosters the illusory feeling that his life matters.
ii) In addition, you are unwittingly proving my point. You are inferring from my original post that I think atheism renders life meaningless. And, indeed, that's what I think.
However, I didn't say that in my post. All I did was to reproduce some language from Richard Dawkins, which I applied to an atheist and his atheistic mourners. The fact that you infer from statements about "robot vehicles" and "blindly programmed survival machines" that life is meaningless is a tacit admission that you yourself think atheism, when frankly stated, has those nihilistic consequences.
That's not *my* interpretation of Dawkins' phraseology–that's *your* interpretation. I didn't quote Dawkins, then quote on the implications of his statement. I simply worded a statement in Dawkinsian terms, and left it to the reader to draw his own conclusions. The fact that infidels are so irate is self-incriminating on their part.
I happen to agree with your interpretation. But that's an inference that you yourself are drawing from naturalistic Darwinian descriptors of human nature. Therefore, you are making my point for me.
"...but the second is inappropriate in most funereal situations, and that’s by most standards (no need for a supernatural standard)..."
What do you mean by "standards"? Do you mean arbitrary social conventions which vary from culture or subculture to the next?
For instance, in some pagan cultures it was an appropriate funereal custom to burn the widow alive.
The real question is whether customary canons of propriety (as you define it) correspond to any objective moral norm.
Ryan Anderson,
ReplyDeleteYou might be interested in reading this article by William Lane Craig if you haven't already. It's taken from chapter two of Craig's book Reasonable Faith, of which there's been a relatively recent revision.
Jonathan said... Did Steve Hays have a gathering at Ken's funeral that I didn't know about?
ReplyDeleteSorry Jonathan at the time i was not made aware you felt that it was Steve that set the rules.Are you saying atheist action must never go no further than any action the theists choose to be involved in.Could you please explain how does that rule work.
Neither was i made aware of atheists quickly venturing onto blogs of any Christians who had only very recently died to rub salt in the fresh wounds of their sudden death maybe to suggest faith of their loved ones was worthless as they would never be seen again.Neither was i aware that this was a type of general atheist practice that it was very common for many atheists to both commend and spend time excusing in public on blog posts.
Is your point that while its quite ok for theists to be involved in these type of practices its very wrong should an atheist become involved in something along the same line of action.Or is it you are saying there is some rule saying that this type of action must never go no further than blogs.
Can you please be kind enough to further explain the point you were making.
Taniwha,
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see you lay a moral foundation for your disapprobation. Unless and until you can do so, you're just emoting.
steve said... If you suffer from such profound intellectual confusion, I’m not sanguine about my ability to clear your mental fog.
ReplyDeleteDear Steve please dont be so easily upset.Do you realize medics suggest its not good for you and can also create heart attacks and sudden death.
i) I was holding the atheist to the ramifications of his own worldview.
No as far as i can see underneath your reasoning it seemed you were also concerned with excusing another Calvinist Christian for his having been holding an agnostic atheist to the ramifications of the Calvinist Christian world view.
ii) You are attempting some sort of analogy. But what do you think is analogous?
Maybe i should leave that to you and others to decide.As you were quick to anger and just told me that you feel im in a mental fog.And if your opinion is im in a mental fog, then what good is there in me in explaining anything further to you.But i wonder do other people in mental fogs always have the same effect of easily upsetting you like this has Steve.Or could it not possibly be something more about a anology you find a little to close to the bone for your personal liking.Just a point for you and others to contemplate.Why do people in mental fogs have the effect on you Steve of making you so quick to anger and feel need to use the personal abuse of claiming them of profound intellectual confusion and in a mental fog.Couldnt you simply just stick with the discussion and prove your point.
Do you feel that is intellectually smart of you Steve.
a) If your comparison is assuming, from a secular standpoint, that Christian survivors won’t see their departed loved ones again because there is no afterlife, that wouldn’t be a case of holding Christians to their own worldview. Rather, that would be imposing a contrary worldview on the mourners.
Dear Steve .The Calvinist Christian in question went onto a agnostic atheists blog who had only just recently died.First called his arguments pitiful arguments which would be missed.Proceeded to pretend i pity you greatly with only a quick Goodbye .And this on a recently dead mans blog whom he also was fully aware could no longer reply for himself.To many their this certainly didnt seem very kind or considerate considdering the situation.
This Calvinist had also already made his worldview known on his blog when suggesting "The Lord will judge him by his works" and suchlike. And if his reason wasnt out of any malicious intent to try to impose his worldview on mourners and Ken so as to rub salt in the wound, then why even bother specially posting his comment on the blog of a dead man.Steve what other reason do you suppose this Calvinist could have had,did he really think maybe a recently deadman might have the ability to reply in return.
Dear Steve i do feel you are grasping at very short straws if you are trying to suggest this Calvinist wasnt at all about trying to impost his thoughts of his worlview on this dead man with some malicious intent.
steve said... If you suffer from such profound intellectual confusion, I’m not sanguine about my ability to clear your mental fog.
ReplyDeleteDear Steve please dont be so easily upset.Do you realize medics suggest its not good for you and can also create heart attacks and sudden death.
i) I was holding the atheist to the ramifications of his own worldview.
No as far as i can see underneath your reasoning it seemed you were also concerned with excusing another Calvinist Christian for his having been holding an agnostic atheist to the ramifications of the Calvinist Christian world view.
ii) You are attempting some sort of analogy. But what do you think is analogous?
Maybe i should leave that to you and others to decide.As you were quick to anger and just told me that you feel im in a mental fog.And if your opinion is im in a mental fog, then what good is there in me in explaining anything further to you.But i wonder do other people in mental fogs always have the same effect of easily upsetting you like this has Steve.Or could it not possibly be something more about a anology you find a little to close to the bone for your personal liking.Just a point for you and others to contemplate.Why do people in mental fogs have the effect on you Steve of making you so quick to anger and feel need to use the personal abuse of claiming them of profound intellectual confusion and in a mental fog.Couldnt you simply just stick with the discussion and prove your point.
Do you feel that is intellectually smart of you Steve.
a) If your comparison is assuming, from a secular standpoint, that Christian survivors won’t see their departed loved ones again because there is no afterlife, that wouldn’t be a case of holding Christians to their own worldview. Rather, that would be imposing a contrary worldview on the mourners.
Dear Steve .The Calvinist Christian in question went onto a agnostic atheists blog who had only just recently died.First called his arguments pitiful arguments which would be missed.Proceeded to pretend i pity you greatly with only a quick Goodbye .And this on a recently dead mans blog whom he also was fully aware could no longer reply for himself.To many their this certainly didnt seem very kind or considerate considdering the situation.
This Calvinist had also already made his worldview known on his blog when suggesting "The Lord will judge him by his works" and suchlike. And if his reason wasnt out of any malicious intent to try to impose his worldview on mourners and Ken so as to rub salt in the wound, then why even bother specially posting his comment on the blog of a dead man.Steve what other reason do you suppose this Calvinist could have had,did he really think maybe a recently deadman might have the ability to reply in return.
Dear Steve i do feel you are grasping at very short straws if you are trying to suggest this Calvinist wasnt at all about trying to impost his thoughts of his worlview on this dead man with some malicious intent.
steve said... If you suffer from such profound intellectual confusion, I’m not sanguine about my ability to clear your mental fog.
ReplyDeleteDear Steve please dont be so easily upset.Do you realize medics suggest its not good for you and can also create heart attacks and sudden death.
i) I was holding the atheist to the ramifications of his own worldview.
No as far as i can see underneath your reasoning it seemed you were also concerned with excusing another Calvinist Christian for his having been holding an agnostic atheist to the ramifications of the Calvinist Christian world view.
ii) You are attempting some sort of analogy. But what do you think is analogous?
Maybe i should leave that to you and others to decide.As you were quick to anger and just told me that you feel im in a mental fog.And if your opinion is im in a mental fog, then what good is there in me in explaining anything further to you.But i wonder do other people in mental fogs always have the same effect of easily upsetting you like this has Steve.Or could it not possibly be something more about a anology you find a little to close to the bone for your personal liking.Just a point for you and others to contemplate.Why do people in mental fogs have the effect on you Steve of making you so quick to anger and feel need to use the personal abuse of claiming them of profound intellectual confusion and in a mental fog.Couldnt you simply just stick with the discussion and prove your point.
Do you feel that this is intellectually smart of you Steve.
a) If your comparison is assuming, from a secular standpoint, that Christian survivors won’t see their departed loved ones again because there is no afterlife, that wouldn’t be a case of holding Christians to their own worldview. Rather, that would be imposing a contrary worldview on the mourners.
ReplyDeleteDear Steve .The Calvinist Christian in question went onto a agnostic atheists blog who had only just recently died.First called his arguments pitiful arguments which would be missed.Proceeded to pretend i pity you greatly with only a quick Goodbye .And this on a recently dead mans blog whom he also was fully aware could no longer reply for himself.To many their this certainly didnt seem very kind or considerate considdering the situation.
This Calvinist had also already made his worldview known on his blog when suggesting "The Lord will judge him by his works" and suchlike. And if his reason wasnt out of any malicious intent to try to impose his worldview on mourners and Ken so as to rub salt in the wound, then why even bother specially posting his comment on the blog of a dead man.Steve what other reason do you suppose this Calvinist could have had,did he really think maybe a recently deadman might have the ability to reply in return.
Dear Steve i do feel you are grasping at very short straws if you are trying to suggest this Calvinist wasnt at all about trying to impost his thoughts of his worlview on this dead man with some malicious intent.
b) If, on the other hand, your comparison is assuming a Christian viewpoint, then there’s no general presumption that the Christian survivors will never see their departed loved ones again.
ReplyDeleteSo your forced analogy is fundamentally disanalogous, however we parse it.
Well Steve thats the Christian worldview but it does not mean its correct and that fact is part of my point.
, c) Pace the Westboro cult, there’s absolutely no presumption that soldiers killed in action are hellbound. That would depend on whether or not the soldier was a Christian. And it’s my impression that Christians are disproportionately represented in the armed forces.
Fine thats your opinion and im not bothered with debating it.I merely pointed out that atheist groups attending Christian services for the dead could be thought of kind of much like the Westboro tactic.
, iii) There is also an undertone of disapproval in your comments even though you have failed to lay a moral foundation for your disapproval. So you’re begging the question.
ReplyDeleteSteve as far as im concerned mostly im only also pointing out what the opposite action might be.We need to considder these matters am i right, when we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
“Yes Steve i fully i agree when things are hurting is always when most people are far more vulnerable.Harsh unforgiving reality is what they need to be hearing.”
Actually, many a minister has used the occasion of a funeral to remind the audience that we should make peace with our Maker before it’s too late. There’s nothing like an open casket ceremonial to drive home that point.
That is very true.But how many ministers would go to a secular blog or funeral with special intent to use the occasion to remind the audience.
steve said...
ReplyDeleteTaniwha,
I have yet to see you lay a moral foundation for your disapprobation. Unless and until you can do so, you're just emoting.
Steve thats your opinion,but i dont agree.I think plenty of moral thought has been used within my comments.And all you do here is claim that it has not.
By the way Steve blogger is giving me trouble today,some of my comments are posting and then suddenly disappear again.Yes i have kept copies.But rather than just posting them over and over again,for the moment i will just wait a while to see if any of my comments remain,before i try posting any of them again.
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve thats your opinion,but i dont agree.I think plenty of moral thought has been used within my comments.And all you do here is claim that it has not."
For the obvious reason that all you have done is to moralize without offering a secular justification for your value judgments. Time to make a deposit before you bounce any more checks.
"Is your point that while its quite ok for theists to be involved in these type of practices its very wrong should an atheist become involved in something along the same line of action."
ReplyDeleteAppropriateness, e.g., "ok"; "very wrong"; is not at question until the basis for moral suasion is answered. Approbation is the seeking of approval, a declaration of approriateness, but that judgement cannot begin until there is moral reason for such.
You have no reason to be here, i.e., you have no moral foundation which justifies it except yourself, so, Steve cannot comply. The only thing you present is emotion, and that too, without "just" cause, i.e., it is irrational. The only cause is just you, justifying you.
Uncritical mass meet the treshold valence.
If you continue down the line of reasoning that your opinion is just as valid as Steve's you make his point, it is a push without movement, no further discussion necessary. The alternatives: agree with Steve, or go away. If you're arguing that your theshold is critical mass, and that Steve's is too, what mover is there left to persuade? IOW, there is no point to either hold, or present your opinions. To do so, is merely emotionalism, grounded purely in self contemplation.
Who cares what you think about yourself?
Taniwha said...
ReplyDelete"Dear Steve i do feel you are grasping at very short straws if you are trying to suggest this Calvinist wasnt at all about trying to impost his thoughts of his worlview on this dead man with some malicious intent."
i) My comments on Pulliam are independent of Alan's comments. We didn't consult each other. I didn't read his post before doing my post. And my follow-up posting has nothing to do with his. I have my own points to make.
ii) But since you bring it up, no, I don't think there's anything "malicious" in what he did.
"No as far as i can see underneath your reasoning it seemed you were also concerned with excusing another Calvinist Christian for his having been holding an agnostic atheist to the ramifications of the Calvinist Christian world view."
You have a knack for seeing nonexistent connections. It would behoove you to focus on actual textual evidence rather than retreating into conspiracy theories. I've been responding to my own commenters. That's the dialectic.
"As you were quick to anger..."
You seem to have a habit of projecting your own emotional statement and lively imagination onto others.
"Or could it not possibly be something more about a anology you find a little to close to the bone for your personal liking."
Since I demonstrated the fallacious nature of your failed analogy, it cuts through the air rather than the bone.
"...and feel need to use the personal abuse..."
You came here lacing your comments with sarcasm, then you complain about the tone. Try working on your own rhetorical register.
"Well Steve thats the Christian worldview but it does not mean its correct and that fact is part of my point."
Irrelevant. You attempted an argument from analogy. The question at issue is not whether you agree with the Christian worldview, but whether your comparison is, in fact, analogous.
"Fine thats your opinion and im not bothered with debating it.I merely pointed out that atheist groups attending Christian services for the dead could be thought of kind of much like the Westboro tactic."
Could by thought so by intellectually undisciplined infidels who resort to sloppy, invalid comparisons, you mean.
"That is very true.But how many ministers would go to a secular blog or funeral with special intent to use the occasion to remind the audience."
Since I haven't done that, your objection is irrelevant. You're shadowboxing with Alan. If you think his conduct was untoward, you can debate that at his blog. Don't use this venue to score points you can't successfully argue over at his blog.
steve said: For the obvious reason that all you have done is to moralize without offering a secular justification for your value judgments. Time to make a deposit before you bounce any more checks.
ReplyDeleteSteve that line of thinking suggests somehow only the faithful can have justification for value judgments.Its a very outdated argument Steve.The faithful of which faiths do you suppose are the only ones to have the right to have justification for value judgments.Its a silly kind of argument that mostly suggests that maybe all value judgements are somehow connect to faith books.Do they also include the books of confucius Steve.And what type of faith do animals follow because they also make some value judgements too.Did they need to all become faithful Christian or Islamic animals first Steve before they could make value judgements.
Steve i think you use this line of argument to try and throw a spanner in the works and derail needing to answer, because you find yourself unable to just stick with providing the good answers.You try and use it as an escape route.Which of course you can do, but its easy for all to see its simply because you fail to provide good answers.
And thomastwitchell following the same tune wont do anything much to change the fact its very easy to see you cant find any other answers.In effect you prefer to take the easy way of escape.
Now i will try again to post the first to comments i made that disappeared.Failing that working i suppose i can always try and post them somewhere else and connect back to this thread.
Taniwah,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should read what Hitchens wrote of the death of Jerry Fallwell. And pay attention here.
Hitchens didn't, as far as I know, go to Fallwell's funeral. He wrote about Fallwell's death. Steve hasn't gone to Pulliam's funeral; he wrote about Pulliam's death.
Hitchens has a much wider audience than Steve Hays does.
Hitchens uses far "harsher" words than Steve Hays ever has.
Where is the feigned atheist indignation about what Hitchens did? Show me the record. Where is the concern that Fallwell's family could read what Hitchens wrote (a much more likely occurrence than that Pulliam's family would read what Steve has written, given the sphere of influence Hitchens has). Show me were your moral outrage was on that issue. Show me where you bands of heroic atheists went to defend Fallwell from such statements.
Until then, you're nothing but an obvious hypocritical tool.
Steve.
ReplyDeleteMy last comment on this whole matter. I grant you that your first post on Ken's death was not a response to any uproar over Rhology's comment on Ken's blog. I was thinking about your next post, "Coping with Death," the comments made there and the following couple of posts after that. Furthermore, it should be pointed out for everyone's edification that you have not been defending Rhology's behavior explicitly, only pointing out that atheists have no legitimate grounds for complaint against him. I wish the atheists who are so quick to attack you would notice this.
Since you apparently know Rhology on a first-name basis, I presume you are airing any disagreements about his behavior via back channels, and no, I don't want or expect you to explain what you think of his behavior or how you folks deal with it.
Furthermore, an awful lot could be said about the relative insignificance of one questionable comment compared to thousands of words attacking the fundamentals of Christian orthodoxy. From your position, Ken committed huge evils over a long period of time. Atheistic complainants are straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel. I get this, even if I disagree with it.
I still think Rhology's, Peter's and your conduct in this matter is troublesome. (If I had a way to communicate this privately I would.) Why didn't you just let the furor over Rhology's comments die down and address the atheism and death issue later? Most of your hostile audience already had read Rhology's post and/or McGrath's post about it.
Some had already been to Rhology's blog where he engaged in some self-justification over the comment. Had he not posted his comment, maybe your original post would have generated more reflection and less hostility. You could have just restrained yourselves and accepted it as an opportunity lost. You know, sometimes it actually makes people more willing to hear your arguments when they aren't simultaneously being insulted/humiliated/painted as idiots. Some people who need to humble themselves before God don't have to humble themselves before YOU. Capeche?
Wow Steve why the need to quickly go right off your rocker.Try out some deep breathing exercises.
ReplyDeleteAnd i see you have quoted some small bits of my comments that disappeared.So it was you who deleted them.
Dean Dough is correct your conduct in this matter is troublesome
DEAN DOUGH SAID:
ReplyDelete'Why didn't you just let the furor over Rhology's comments die down and address the atheism and death issue later?"
Well for one thing, my posting on the subject never was coordinated with Alan's. I wasn't tracking the feedback on his blog.
For another thing, it's best to strike when interest in the subject is at its peak.
Pulliam's death is basically a "one-day story." Notice how quickly Debunking Christianity and Common Sense Atheism went back to business as usual, posting on other stuff.
"Had he not posted his comment, maybe your original post would have generated more reflection and less hostility."
I doubt it. I knew my original post as provocative. It elicited a predictable response. But that very response confirmed my point: infidels are in denial.
"You know, sometimes it actually makes people more willing to hear your arguments when they aren't simultaneously being insulted/humiliated/painted as idiots."
Two issues:
i) Different Christians have different roles to play. Some Christians play the nice guy role. And there's a place for that. In general, it's best if they outnumber folks like me.
Howevever, there are certain things which need to be said, things which nice guys can't get away with saying, lest they tarnish their nice guy image.
Nice guys don't stick their neck out. But someone needs to do that now and then. Otherwise, important things are left unsaid.
ii) In addition, militant infidels are intellectually proud. So it's useful to hit them in their soft spot. Can they made good on their intellectual pretensions?
They keep crowing about the rational superiority of atheism, and the rational inferiority of Christianity. So I call their bluff. And that's all it is. It takes very little time to expose their losing hand.
That's a useful exercise. It disarms them. Leaves them without a shield to hide behind.
The nice guy Christians can do the rest.
"Some people who need to humble themselves before God don't have to humble themselves before YOU. Capeche?"
Since I never ask people to humble themselves before me, that's a gratuitous swipe.
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete"And i see you have quoted some small bits of my comments that disappeared.So it was you who deleted them."
You have an overactive imagination. Your comments were caught in the spam filter. I quoted the pertinent portions.
steve said: You have an overactive imagination. Your comments were caught in the spam filter. I quoted the pertinent portions.
ReplyDeleteSteve you are right on top of your ball game today with offering up the excuses.That excuse seems about as plausible as your suggestion that for some reason atheists have no way to make value judgements.
You might hope it sounds truly plausible .But i doubt all will find it so likely.
Peter Pike , i intend to answer your thoughts please just give me a little time before i answer you,im reading up on the material of Hitchen and Jerry Falwell,my first impression is how does Peter compare this attitude of Hitchens to the type of attitude of Kens.Maybe you have some material that shows Ken to be extremely rude toward Christians like Hitchens.Or feel he was lots like this Jerry Falwell.
Unless im missing something, for now i find this a little hard to believe when many of Kens family were still Christian,and as far as i knew Ken was often specially well known for being extra kind and caring compared to many atheists.
Taniwha writes:
ReplyDeleteYou might hope it sounds truly plausible .But i doubt all will find it so likely.
Anyone who has any experience with Blogger's new spam filter will find it highly plausible, if not almost certain.
Besides, Triablogue gives warnings before comments are deleted, and they've dealt with a lot worse than you. Seems like a strange time to start silent bans.
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve you are right on top of your ball game today with offering up the excuses...You might hope it sounds truly plausible .But i doubt all will find it so likely."
I realize that you're deeply attached to your fantasy world, but it's foolish of you to make easily falsifiable claims. I'm not the only blogger at Triablogue. A number of my team members can also check the spam filter and confirm the fact that that's where your disappearing comments wound up.
"That excuse seems about as plausible as your suggestion that for some reason atheists have no way to make value judgements."
Which shows your ignorance of atheism. I've cited and quoted a number of atheist thinkers who admit that atheism and moral relativism go together.
Ryan Anderson was asked:
ReplyDeleteSo is there a standard that Steve should aspire to?
And he replied: "should" is really up to you. Obviously there are consequences to not aspiring to your society/nation/state/family's standard. But again, that's really up to you.
So with a response like that could somebody remind me again what he's in here complaining about?
I honestly can't recall the last time I saw someone publicly euthanize his own epistemological standards.
It's like being in a gunfight and holding one's sidearm to one's own head while declaring to the advancing enemy, "Don't take one more step or I'll pull the trigger!"
*BANG*
In Him,
CD
P.S. - Steve, when did you gain the power to make your opponents implode? It's a really great trick.
Peter Pike said... Perhaps you should read what Hitchens wrote of the death of Jerry Fallwell.
ReplyDeletePeter i read what Hitchens said of Jerry Fallwell.I still dont see how you connect a Jerry Fallwell type with Ken.As far as i know Ken even treated all who had opposing views with true kindness and decency including even the very person in question who went purposely to his blog upon his death and seemed to lack empathy.
Still i feel maybe Hitchens didnt need to quickly jump upon Jerry Fallwells death and abruptly talk about him the way he did.Even if it was said Fallwell blamed the secular for 9/11 hated gays and muslim and more.
But then im the type who cant help feeling some empathy for somebody who i might even otherwise class as an enemy,when they suddenly die or have recently lost a loved one.
Hitchens didn't, as far as I know, go to Fallwell's funeral. He wrote about Fallwell's death. Steve hasn't gone to Pulliam's funeral; he wrote about Pulliam's death.
Hitchens has a much wider audience than Steve Hays does.
Hitchens uses far "harsher" words than Steve Hays ever has.
Pete my thought has nothing to do with Steve or even Rhoblogy or anyone else simply writing about Ken.My thought is more about why somebody would need to purposely go to the dead persons blog, whom it is also said only even treated them well when ever they had visited before ,and then feel need to treat them to such contempt when they could no longer even reply in return for themself.
Kens blog was a place where those who loved and would honestly miss him would quite likely be sure to venture.Where as it would possibly need to be brought to the attention of Fallwell's family what Hitchens had written and where abouts it was written as well,and even then they would still have a choice as to whether they wish to bother go and read it or not.Kens family possibly already looked in from time to time.
The only other thought i have about Steve is why seem to bother trying to excuse this.Writing about Ken seems fine,but why suggest maybe Rhos action was ok.
Pete its the prerogative of all people on this blog if they wish to be seen to condone such action by not saying its not good.Even if they need to do so by saying what Hitchens did maybe makes Kens treatment ok.Using a double whammy by comparing the attitude of Hitchens to Kens.
steve said... A number of my team members can also check the spam filter and confirm the fact that that's where your disappearing comments wound up.
ReplyDeleteI understand blogger has its problems Steve and that as you said your team could always check, however its funny how the spam filter swallowed the first two comments only after i had went to also post the third one.Then let the final two go straight through,but yet time and again repeated deleting the first two even after they were also split and posted as three or four.
Never ever quite seen this type of problem before .However i will accept this answer you give.And by the way thanks very much for posting the parts of them that you did.
Which shows your ignorance of atheism. I've cited and quoted a number of atheist thinkers who admit that atheism and moral relativism go together.
That maybe Steve.Yet then faith morals are no less than being about this relativism also themselves.It is not a given thing that your faith and faith belief and books and what not is proved to have taken on any special seperate being of it own steam.If it honestly had then we might have reason to see only one faith worldwide.Faith is relative to culture.Morals are relative to human minds.
Morals are relative to human minds.
ReplyDeleteMight help explain why we no longer think about dashing babies heads against rocks or stone people to death.Or think about providing our daughters for sex toys to be used, rather than see mobs of men rape another man.
Dean Dough said:
ReplyDeleteI still think Rhology's, Peter's and your conduct in this matter is troublesome. (If I had a way to communicate this privately I would.)
Well, it's not as if this info is exactly hard to come by. All you have to do is click on Rhology's Blogger profile to get his email address, which he's had available for a long time (at least one year, I believe, if not longer), and which I just pulled up in less than a minute. Given how easy it is to contact him by personal email, I take it you didn't put a whole lot of effort into trying?
Taniwha said:
And i see you have quoted some small bits of my comments that disappeared.So it was you who deleted them.
That's a huge allegation without the least shred of evidence.
Plus, it makes no sense. Why would we still allow you to post comments like this one as well as subsequent comments if, in fact, we did delete your original comment(s)? Do you think you've said something so deleterious to our position in those comments that we simply had to censor them? Or something else?
That said, I just checked and the truth is that your comments were automatically relegated to our spam box by Blogger. I have no idea why that is. See this screenshot for proof (I've whited-out bits which I wanted to remain private).
In any case, I've moved your comments out of the spam box and back into this combox so people can see what you've said.
Next time, don't jump to unsubstantiated conclusions like this and start wagging your finger at us.
Taniwha said:
ReplyDeleteMorals are relative to human minds.
Might help explain why we no longer think about dashing babies heads against rocks or stone people to death.Or think about providing our daughters for sex toys to be used, rather than see mobs of men rape another man.
If, as you say, "Morals are relative to human minds," then what's wrong with, as you say, "dashing babies heads against rocks or stone people to death.Or think about providing our daughters for sex toys to be used"? In fact, what's wrong with, as you say, "purposely go to the dead persons blog, whom it is also said only even treated them well when ever they had visited before ,and then feel need to treat them to such contempt"? On the one hand, you complain about how some of us have morally conducted ourselves against Ken. On the other hand, you say "Morals are relative to human minds." You've just proven Steve's point for the umpteenth time.
Patrick said: If, as you say, "Morals are relative to human minds," then what's wrong with, as you say, "dashing babies heads against rocks or stone people to death.Or think about providing our daughters for sex toys to be used"? In fact, what's wrong with, as you say, "purposely go to the dead persons blog, whom it is also said only even treated them well when ever they had visited before ,and then feel need to treat them to such contempt"? On the one hand, you complain about how some of us have morally conducted ourselves against Ken. On the other hand, you say "Morals are relative to human minds." You've just proven Steve's point for the umpteenth time.
ReplyDeleteI think Peter Pike astutely distilled the anti-theist line of argumentation being employed earlier in the thread when he summarized it thusly:
Essentially, your argument is this: "I don't like it. Therefore, obey me."
Happily that line of argumentation is easily dismissed.
In Him,
CD
(at least one year, I believe, if not longer).
ReplyDelete5 years plus, actually. :-)
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete"That maybe Steve.Yet then faith morals are no less than being about this relativism also themselves.It is not a given thing that your faith and faith belief and books and what not is proved to have taken on any special seperate being of it own steam.If it honestly had then we might have reason to see only one faith worldwide.Faith is relative to culture."
That's a stock, polemical caricature of Christianity for which you offer no evidence, and which you assert in the teeth of contrary evidence.
"Might help explain why we no longer think about dashing babies heads against rocks..."
Even a liberal commentator like Goldingay could correct your ignorant misinterpretation. But you don't make a good faith effort to understand it.
"...or stone people to death."
To the contrary, many of us still believe in the death penalty. And the precise modality is often secondary.
"Or think about providing our daughters for sex toys to be used, rather than see mobs of men rape another man."
i) Another classic blunder. A narrator doesn't ipso facto approve of whatever he narrates. Indeed, he can narrate an event to express disapproval. You don' help your cause with such unintelligent objections.
ii) But since you bring it up, just as some men use women as sex toys, some women use men as sex toys. It cuts both ways.
Spare us your sexist stereotyping.
"That is very true.But how many ministers would go to a secular blog or funeral with special intent to use the occasion to remind the audience."
ReplyDeleteWell, as a minister of the Gospel with 20, now going on 21 years of conducting funerals, please allow me a moment to respond to that comment.
I conducted my first funeral in 1990. How many reading these comments were even born or out of grade 6? Please, don't tell me.
After the funeral many commented no one talks about what you talked about anymore.
I knew then that Christian convictions regarding life, death and judgement were in serious trouble. And this was in a supposedly fundamentalist area of the country. Though a visiting missionary would later observe that if this is the Bible Belt it is a rather thin Belt. But I digress.
So, after 20 years; what have I spoken of at funerals?
I speak privately to family and friends and publically the following.
1) In the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead there is no need to fear death for those who believe this. Thus a great comfort can be had and held onto.
2) The Reality of Why Christ had to Die. The issues of sin and judgement are put onto the table and not taken off.
I have spoken many times to people with differing levels of belief and unbelief that their anger at Death is actually a healthy thing because it was not supposed to be this way.
What I often find amnongst many with little belief is this amazing ability to numb out and not to want to consider matters of eternity and judgement.
Never have I found it offensive to speak of matters of sin and judgement. Reference the numbing out comment made above and the willingness of people to be open to hear.
What I find amongst many of the religious folks is the desire to just talk about the person at a funeral. It is the religious who often find the clear teachings of the Gospel to be troublesome at the time of the funeral.
So, sin, judgement and the love of God in Christ are held forth. Specifically and with deliberate intention at the time of a funeral.
You want a minister of the gospel to be there? Well, this is what I am obligated, commanded to speak about.
Shalom
Oh, and speak of it I shall for the love of God in Christ constrains me to do so.
ReplyDeleteIn a related way, I have often found the comments of Jesus in Luke 13:1-9, I believe, of interest regarding matters of death, suffering and where is God.
God at this point was certainly not politically correct or understanding. In the ways that many think He should be.
Steve professes to be a Christian. If true, it means he does believe in objective right, and wrong. Only by objective standards could his actions be either right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteHe also believes that inside each person's physical body is a metaphysical entity. Accordingly, grief is not simply some sub-routine activated when condition A is true. Death of the body is not end of the story, and Ken's death could truly and possibly be tragic.
It would not be hypocritical for a Christian to chastise Steve for not living up to some standard of decency (if in fact he hadn't), as that Christian shares Steve's standard and is thus able to critique his words against them. But on what standard is any infidel able to do this?
As Steve has pointed out continuously, and rightfully, (and I don't think excessively), non-believers cannot hold Steve to any standard since their world view only permits relative standards, and there was nothing particularly out of the ordinary, or tragic about Ken's death, despite it being the trigger for programmed responses.
If standards are relative, Steve could have done a whole lot worse, or a whole lot better, and either action would still have been equally valid; to deny this (in an atheistic world view) simply has no justification apart from individual preference.
The gauntlet his actions have thrown down is this:
1. Either accept that the outrage people are feeling in response to his eulogy is evidence that the human sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is indeed objective, consider the implications this has on one's world view, and adjust one's world view accordingly; or
2. Live consistently within the world view one already professes, and ignore the emotive force of the reaction as mere programming. For Steve's response to Ken's death is just as valid as everyone elses.
There really is no middle ground.
"The gauntlet his actions have thrown down is this:
ReplyDelete1. Either accept that the outrage people are feeling in response to his eulogy is evidence that the human sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is indeed objective, consider the implications this has on one's world view, and adjust one's world view accordingly; or
2. Live consistently within the world view one already professes, and ignore the emotive force of the reaction as mere programming. For Steve's response to Ken's death is just as valid as everyone elses.
There really is no middle ground."
Well said by the previous writer.
I had a busy morning, so only just got around to catching up here. Most of what I would have said has already been addressed, so I won't repeat that part.
ReplyDeleteHowever, two things.
First, Dean said to Steve:
---
I still think Rhology's, Peter's and your conduct in this matter is troublesome.
---
Really? Our "conduct" is troublesome? All we've *done* is written words in blog posts. How exactly is that troublesome?
But as to the content of our written words, all Rhology did was to post that he pitied Ken because of Ken's eternal state. All Steve did was post as if atheism were true. All I've done is post against atheist hypocrisy at condemning Steve and Rhology!
Where exactly is the problem?
Secondly, for Taniwha: Every statement you write in defense of Hitchens is a nail in your own coffin, proving your hypocrisy.
Patrick Chan said...That's a huge allegation without the least shred of evidence.
ReplyDeleteHello Patrick yes allow me to apologize.I should have been far better instead to have first asked Steve the question.So (was it) you who deleted them,instead of thinking (it was), and then have left Steve the time to first offer an explaination.Please understand part of my confusion arose after noticing for some strange reason Steve had freely posted only small parts of what comment i had written.Yet didnt just go the whole hog and simply repost the whole comment i had made.But anyway thanks Patrick i see you have posted my whole comment now.My apology for the mistake of jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Plus, it makes no sense
Please see my reason as well as apology offered above.The reason for confusion was why would somebody post only part of a comment.I feel it does make some sense, because when somebody is seen to be prepared of posting only parts of a comment, it tends to leave us some questions and confusion as to understanding why that would happen.
I have no idea why that is.
Never mind.
Next time, don't jump to unsubstantiated conclusions like this and start wagging your finger at us.
Sorry Patrick.I accept your finger wagging and have apologized and also offered you a honest explaination as well.
Patrick Chan said... If, as you say, "Morals are relative to human minds," then what's wrong with, as you say, "dashing babies heads against rocks or stone people to death.Or think about providing our daughters for sex toys to be used"? In fact, what's wrong with, as you say, "purposely go to the dead persons blog, whom it is also said only even treated them well when ever they had visited before ,and then feel need to treat them to such contempt"? On the one hand, you complain about how some of us have morally conducted ourselves against Ken. On the other hand, you say "Morals are relative to human minds." You've just proven Steve's point for the umpteenth time.
ReplyDeletePatrick your conclusion relys on the opinion that if our Morals are relative to human minds .Then that means we will then also always have the right in a social society to freely pick and choose to do what ever we want.
But this is not even true within society of dogs,cats,horses or pigs, lions or fish and birds.Have you not noticed how these animals have to learn to live within some socially accepted boundarys also, these animals have also evolved to live by.For instance a bitch will not always put up with bad behaviour from her pups.For instance there comes a time when a bitch will not put up with the puppy being annoying or biting her to hard.
Animals have evolved with some emotion that includes anger and also empathy as well,which is why a bitch doesnt simply abandon her pups at birth.Its why a bitch will also first try her best to try and protect her young against attack from other predators.Humans have evolved with this emotion of anger as well as empathy too.Just as a bitch will sometimes be seen to show concern when pups are fighting, humans will show concern and have empathy that will cause us sadness and nightmares when people choose to start dashing babies heads against rocks.
And so its natural that i feel the emotion of some empathy and a little sadness when i see some people go to a dead mans blog who only recently passed away.Specially when the dead man was well know by both atheist and faithful to be extremely understanding and kind to all, and including the very person who purposely went back there to tell him he felt pity .This pity might have seemed more acceptable, had this persons words also contained some words of caring and kindness.But sadly they seem only harsh and abrupt.
However i accept we make mistakes.Even the mistake of sometimes not being prepared of offering apology.
But i also suggest the fact that those who call themselves Christian can sometimes be experienced to act this way, infact tends to back up the idea that moral thought is indeed relative to our human minds.It sure dont seem to suggest that any God is very much in control.
But that moral thought is relative to human mind, doesnt necessarily then simply give us all total freedom and right to act uncouth in a social type society that we live in,where by we can act and do as we please.
For to have right to always act and do as we please, does not even happen to work in the lives of dogs,cats,goats,horses,lions,fisn,birds either.
Taniwha said "Humans have evolved with this emotion of anger as well as empathy too."
ReplyDeleteHuman's have also evolved with belief in God/gods. Therefore there must be some type of evolutionary advantage to it.
Coram Deo said: Essentially, your argument is this: "I don't like it. Therefore, obey me."
ReplyDeleteHappily that line of argumentation is easily dismissed.
In Him,
CD
Yes Coram Deo i agree with you it is easily dismissed.We mostly live in social socities not societies ruled by anarchy.I said nothing about anyone needimg to obey me ,not at all,i basically asked if the action seemed very social or kind.
Ive said more about my opinion already just before making this comment to you.(But from my end where im looking at this moment) it now also seems the spam filter is hungry again today and has already swallowed my other two previous comments up. Even though i can already see a reply from ἐκκλησία .
Im not sure whats happening ,but maybe Patrick can remedy and retreive them.I have also kept some copys if they are needed.
Yes Coram Deo i agree with you it is easily dismissed.We mostly live in social socities not societies ruled by anarchy.I said nothing about anyone needimg to obey me ,not at all,i basically asked if the action seemed very social or kind.
ReplyDeleteBased upon what standard?
You seem to keep missing the point over and over...it's really an amazing thing to behold.
If I'm personally convinced that it's social and kind to burn live kittens in front of small children while laughing maniacally and throwing the flaming hairballs at the horrified and crying audience, who's to say that I'm wrong? On what authority? By what standard am I judged?
What if I find a hundred like-minded people who believe as I do, and we build a compound away from the rest of the world where we practice our pyro-art, would you still consider it unkind and anti-social? Why or why not, and by what standard?
What if I only indulge in my live kitten burning and flinging fetish in the privacy of my own basement laboratory, and no one ever knows about it; is my behavior still unkind and anti-social? Why or why not, and by what standard?
In Christ,
CD
steve said: That's a stock, polemical caricature of Christianity for which you offer no evidence, and which you assert in the teeth of contrary evidence.
ReplyDeleteSteve thats your opinion.There are plenty who still do disagree with you.
Even a liberal commentator like Goldingay could correct your ignorant misinterpretation. But you don't make a good faith effort to understand it.
Steve if Goldingay disagrees.Does that simply make you both more correct?.Besides even if i did misinterprete it,what form of safety net was there in place to stop others from also doing so.God doesnt inspire safety nets?.
To the contrary, many of us still believe in the death penalty. And the precise modality is often secondary.
Steve stoning people was not only just a death penalty but it was also used as a form of extended torture.Do you believe we should also first use extended torture on people at their death penalty.
i) Another classic blunder. A narrator doesn't ipso facto approve of whatever he narrates. Indeed, he can narrate an event to express disapproval. You don' help your cause with such unintelligent objections.
Steve by your account the opinion of Rhology on Kens blog could just have been expressing disapproval of people pitying Ken.But surely it would be intelligent to also first be very sure people knew this.
ii) But since you bring it up, just as some men use women as sex toys, some women use men as sex toys. It cuts both ways.
Spare us your sexist stereotyping.
Steve do you try to suggest men still hand out their daughters these days as sex toys to help stop men being raped by other men.
Steve i dont see where i said anything was wrong about consenting adults agreeing on sex play.
You do agree? there is quite a difference between a father offering his daughter as a sex toy to save another man from being raped by a group of men (daughter doesnt choose).And consenting adults themselves agreeing to partake in sex play.
You are a Christian Steve ,so i guess you must have some very good reason to feel such extreme need to suggest im ignorant,unintelligent and into sexist stereotyping .
Thankfully personally i dont feel the need to get so personal and start calling you names like ignorant and unintelligent etc.
Cant we just shake hands like adults do ,and debate these matters without needing to get personal and call each other such names.
post 1 of 2
ReplyDeletesteve said: That's a stock, polemical caricature of Christianity for which you offer no evidence, and which you assert in the teeth of contrary evidence.
Steve thats your opinion.There are plenty who still do disagree with you.
Even a liberal commentator like Goldingay could correct your ignorant misinterpretation. But you don't make a good faith effort to understand it.
Steve if Goldingay disagrees.Does that simply make you both more correct?.Besides even if i did misinterprete it,what form of safety net was there in place to stop others from also doing so.God doesnt inspire safety nets?.
To the contrary, many of us still believe in the death penalty. And the precise modality is often secondary.
Steve stoning people was not only just a death penalty but it was also used as a form of extended torture.Do you believe we should also first use extended torture on people at their death penalty.
i) Another classic blunder. A narrator doesn't ipso facto approve of whatever he narrates. Indeed, he can narrate an event to express disapproval. You don' help your cause with such unintelligent objections.
Steve by your account the opinion of Rhology on Kens blog could just have been expressing disapproval of people pitying Ken.But surely it would be intelligent to also first be very sure people knew this.
post 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteii) But since you bring it up, just as some men use women as sex toys, some women use men as sex toys. It cuts both ways.
Spare us your sexist stereotyping.
Steve do you try to suggest men still hand out their daughters these days as sex toys to help stop men being raped by other men.
Steve i dont see where i said anything was wrong about consenting adults agreeing on sex play.
You do agree? there is quite a difference between a father offering his daughter as a sex toy to save another man from being raped by a group of men (daughter doesnt choose).And consenting adults themselves agreeing to partake in sex play.
You are a Christian Steve ,so i guess you must have some very good reason to feel such extreme need to suggest im ignorant,unintelligent and into sexist stereotyping .
Thankfully personally i dont feel the need to get so personal and start calling you names like ignorant and unintelligent etc.
Cant we just shake hands like adults do ,and debate these matters without needing to get personal and call each other such names.
GREV said: I conducted my first funeral in 1990. How many reading these comments were even born or out of grade 6? Please, don't tell me.
ReplyDeleteHi Grev i left school bound for work back in 1977.
You want a minister of the gospel to be there? Well, this is what I am obligated, commanded to speak about.
Grev that seems fine.People have asked for it.But if somebody whos know well to be extra kind and caring (ex Christian from bible uni claimed agnostic atheist) suddenly died.Would you feel any great need to quickly rush around to his house or blog and abuptly say you felt some sort of need to pity him. At least not without also offering up some kind and caring and comforting words also?
Shalom
Peace and all the very best Grev.
GREV said: Luke 13:1-9
ReplyDeleteSorry GREV i still fail to see where this connects to offending the grieving friends of the dead.
GREV im wondering out of interest. If you had offended friends of a recently dead person whos blood hard hardly had the time to cool. Would it still be totally beyound you to simply apologize for offending, even if you still felt only this abrupt sense of pity for them.
1 of 2 posts
ReplyDeleteἐκκλησία said: Only by objective standards could his actions be either right or wrong.
Hi ἐκκλησία.Types of objective standard exists for many things.What medication is thought best to use how best to provide better safety on roads,what faith might be true or false,what might seem more or less moral.
Without a God first appearing in person in public to provide the type of objective empirical evidence needed to confirm the theory of objective morals decided by God.
Christian moral is no more objective
than Islamic moral or Atheist moral thought either.
But on what standard is any infidel able to do this?
What standard is used to critique speed limits ἐκκλησία .Does God pop down to earth and decide.
As Steve has pointed out continuously, and rightfully, (and I don't think excessively), non-believers cannot hold Steve to any standard since their world view only permits relative standards
This is an opinion of Steves.But its no more objective than many other opinions ,until God arrives in person and provides an opinion that could then be honestly classed as more objective.Steve may have stated things many times, but that dont prove him as correct.
If standards are relative, Steve could have done a whole lot worse, or a whole lot better, and either action would still have been equally valid; to deny this (in an atheistic world view) simply has no justification apart from individual preference.
This is so very untrue.We humans decide on very many standards within our social societies all the time.Does God decide on speed limits and age limit of drivers and other decisions we need to still make all the time.Are people of what of speed limit should be, thought equally valid.No
2 of 2 posts
ReplyDeleteἐκκλησία The gauntlet his actions have thrown down is this:
1. Either accept that the outrage people are feeling in response to his eulogy is evidence that the human sense of 'right' and 'wrong' is indeed objective, consider the implications this has on one's world view, and adjust one's world view accordingly; or
2. Live consistently within the world view one already professes, and ignore the emotive force of the reaction as mere programming. For Steve's response to Ken's death is just as valid as everyone elses.
There really is no middle ground.
Once again untrue.There is middle ground many times.Middle ground is used when Christians,Islamists,Atheists,Black,White,Crippled,
intellectually disabled so on and so forth all try and learn ways to co-exist together in more harmony.
And God doesnt write a new bible each time the speed limits are altered.Why claim humans need God to decide what might be right or wrong when our every day life proves that wrong.
Peter Pike said: Every statement you write in defense of Hitchens is a nail in your own coffin, proving your hypocrisy.
ReplyDeletePeter i dont totally defend Hitchens.Please show evidence of where i totally defend Hitchens.I purposely tried to explain i felt it was not needed for Hitchens to rush in the day after the death.
But anyway if you feel happy comparing Rhologys treatment of somebody like Ken, to Hitchens treatment of Fallwell then like i said thats your prerogative.
But Peter how about you try and supply evidence that at some stage Ken had as much public hate for gays or resisted civil rights,was critical of sanctions against the apartheid regimes,or stated that the Islamic religion itself is Satanic.And maybe even more.
And where did Ken also need to make public apology for such behaviour.
Ken was well known for personally trying hard to be extremely caring and kind to both atheists and the faithful alike Peter.
In your mind Peter is it justice to judge all the same way.In your mind maybe would all criminals be sentanced to the same disgrace and jail term.
Peter you said Every statement you write in defense of Hitchens is a nail in your own coffin, proving your hypocrisy
Well all i can say is if you feel your coffin is nail free and your concience is completely clear of any hypocrisy.Once again thats your prerogative.
ἐκκλησία said... Taniwha said "Humans have evolved with this emotion of anger as well as empathy too."
ReplyDeleteHuman's have also evolved with belief in God/gods. Therefore there must be some type of evolutionary advantage to it.
ἐκκλησία here i can find some middle ground with you.At times faith has been helpful in giving many people a sense of belonging.It has helped people with giving them direction.It was a great way to bind certain groups of people together.In times when people never understood certian factors of life for example why some people would be struck by lightening or earthquake,it helped them try to understand.
But sadly faith also brought devisions that were bound in faith just as colour brought devision that was bound in racism.And some faith helped caused abuse in cults, and unfortunately then this abuse in cults was also bound in fear of hell and thoughts of being punished in afterlife should they dare think against the faith.
ἐκκλησία im not somebody who is become totally apposed to faith.
Will wait until tomorrow and leave it up to either Patrick Chan or Steve Hays or somebody to first see if they can kindly try retrieving my first two comments out of the Spam filter again.Rather than just try myself reposting copies of them now.
ReplyDeleteTaniwha said:
ReplyDeleteHello Patrick yes allow me to apologize.I should have been far better instead to have first asked Steve the question.So (was it) you who deleted them,instead of thinking (it was), and then have left Steve the time to first offer an explaination.Please understand part of my confusion arose after noticing for some strange reason Steve had freely posted only small parts of what comment i had written.Yet didnt just go the whole hog and simply repost the whole comment i had made.But anyway thanks Patrick i see you have posted my whole comment now.My apology for the mistake of jumping to the wrong conclusion.
Um, no, I never deleted them. In fact, I didn't even know your comments had been relegated to the spam box until I read your comment saying they were. I know Blogger has issues. I don't know about this specific issue. But you should check out their blog. I'm in school and have to study for exams so I don't have the time to check it out right now. Maybe after exams I can look into it.
Taniwha,
ReplyDeleteYes, I've restored your comments.
Taniwha said:
ReplyDeletePatrick your conclusion relys on the opinion that if our Morals are relative to human minds .Then that means we will then also always have the right in a social society to freely pick and choose to do what ever we want.
That's not my "opinion." That's your "opinion." I'm just going off what you said.
But this is not even true within society of dogs,cats,horses or pigs, lions or fish and birds.Have you not noticed how these animals have to learn to live within some socially accepted boundarys also, these animals have also evolved to live by.For instance a bitch will not always put up with bad behaviour from her pups.For instance there comes a time when a bitch will not put up with the puppy being annoying or biting her to hard.
Animals have evolved with some emotion that includes anger and also empathy as well,which is why a bitch doesnt simply abandon her pups at birth.Its why a bitch will also first try her best to try and protect her young against attack from other predators.Humans have evolved with this emotion of anger as well as empathy too.Just as a bitch will sometimes be seen to show concern when pups are fighting, humans will show concern and have empathy that will cause us sadness and nightmares when people choose to start dashing babies heads against rocks.
1. Do animals think of themselves as having emotions like "anger" and "empathy"? That it's moral or ethical for them to do this or not do that? Rather, you're anthropomorphizing animals without arguing for it.
2. You only talk about the animal "ethics" you find acceptable. But what about the ones you might not find acceptable? Some animals have evolved with the desire to eat their mates. That's what black widows and praying mantises sometimes do. So does this mean you're fine with those humans who were or are cannibals since, after all, some animals do that? Likewise, you say some animals don't abandon their young. But what about animals that do abandon their young (e.g. some species of snakes, turtles, birds)? Also, some animals let the weaker members of their species die because (it's said) it strengthens the survival of the species as a whole. I take it you think we should let the weaker humans die as well? Some animals mate with multiple partners of their species. Are you saying this sets a positive ethical precendence for humans to do the same? Some lions will slaughter all the cubs when they join a new pride. Should humans do this as well? Some monkeys will kill or murder other rival groups of the same species of monkeys. Does this mean you're fine if and when one group of humans kills or murders another group of humans?
(Cont.)
ReplyDeleteAnd so its natural that i feel the emotion of some empathy and a little sadness when i see some people go to a dead mans blog who only recently passed away.Specially when the dead man was well know by both atheist and faithful to be extremely understanding and kind to all, and including the very person who purposely went back there to tell him he felt pity .This pity might have seemed more acceptable, had this persons words also contained some words of caring and kindness.But sadly they seem only harsh and abrupt.
However i accept we make mistakes.Even the mistake of sometimes not being prepared of offering apology.
But i also suggest the fact that those who call themselves Christian can sometimes be experienced to act this way, infact tends to back up the idea that moral thought is indeed relative to our human minds.It sure dont seem to suggest that any God is very much in control.
But that moral thought is relative to human mind, doesnt necessarily then simply give us all total freedom and right to act uncouth in a social type society that we live in,where by we can act and do as we please.
For to have right to always act and do as we please, does not even happen to work in the lives of dogs,cats,goats,horses,lions,fisn,birds either.
1. What you've said commits a well-known fallacy: you're deducing ethical sentiments from natural facts.
2. What you've said doesn't account for competing ethical desires. Not to mention the fact that it's posible for us to override those desires even though according to you we're evolutionarily hardwired for those desires.
3. Nothing you've said grounds objective morality and ethics. In fact what you've said undercuts objective morality and ethics. Sure, it may be "natural" for you to "feel the emotion of some empathy and a little sadness" in this case. But again what's "natural" isn't necessarily what's ethical or unethical. It's just a feeling. You can't say it's right or wrong to feel this or that way. And you can't say it's right or wrong to act this or that way. Therefore you have no grounds to criticize us for feeling or acting a different way.
TANIWHA SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve thats your opinion.There are plenty who still do disagree with you.”
Your opinion of my opinion.
“Steve if Goldingay disagrees.Does that simply make you both more correct?”
Yes, since he gives a supporting argument, and you don’t.
“Besides even if i did misinterprete it,what form of safety net was there in place to stop others from also doing so.God doesnt inspire safety nets?”
There’s no safety net for folks like you who willfully misinterpret the verse. If you fall to your death (to play along with the metaphor), that’s your fault.
You don’t make a serious effort to understand the verse.
“Steve stoning people was not only just a death penalty but it was also used as a form of extended torture.Do you believe we should also first use extended torture on people at their death penalty.”
Stoning would hardly qualify as “extended torture,” but even if it did, your disapproval of torture is just your opinion (as you’re wont to say). And if a torturer gets a kick out of torture, well, that’s his opinion, too.
“Steve by your account the opinion of Rhology on Kens blog could just have been expressing disapproval of people pitying Ken.But surely it would be intelligent to also first be very sure people knew this.”
Now you’re changing the subject. Your original objection involved an allusion to a recorded gang rape in Scripture.
“Steve do you try to suggest men still hand out their daughters these days as sex toys to help stop men being raped by other men.”
If you think gang rape is wrong, that’s just your opinion–remember? And if the rapist thinks that gang-rape is good clean fun, well that’s just his opinion, right?
Cont. “You do agree? there is quite a difference between a father offering his daughter as a sex toy to save another man from being raped by a group of men (daughter doesnt choose).And consenting adults themselves agreeing to partake in sex play.”
ReplyDeletei) Why would I agree to that? According to you, your morality is relative to your brain, while the morality of the rapist is relative to his brain. Why does your relative morality trump his relative morality?
ii) In addition, you’re still too thick to get the point. The fact that Scripture records a case of gang-rape is not an endorsement of gang-rape.
“You are a Christian Steve ,so i guess you must have some very good reason to feel such extreme need to suggest im ignorant,unintelligent and into sexist stereotyping .”
Since you don’t argue in good faith, rational dialogue is impossible.
“This is an opinion of Steves.But its no more objective than many other opinions.”
No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s the “opinion” of atheist thinkers who admit that atheism lacks the resources to underwrite objective moral norms.
“This is so very untrue.We humans decide on very many standards within our social societies all the time.”
Like Muslim cultures which decide gang-rape and honor-killings are a suitable punishment for a girl to brought shame on the family name.
“But Peter how about you try and supply evidence that at some stage Ken had as much public hate for gays or resisted civil rights,was critical of sanctions against the apartheid regimes,or stated that the Islamic religion itself is Satanic.”
But that’s just your opinion, which is relative to your evolutionary brain. Falwell had different opinions which were relative to his evolutionary brain. Moreover, Falwell’s subculture decided to make opposition to homosexual rights a social standard. We do that all the time, right?
Taniwah said:
ReplyDelete---
But anyway if you feel happy comparing Rhologys treatment of somebody like Ken, to Hitchens treatment of Fallwell then like i said thats your prerogative.
---
Yup, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Christian dead guy = mock him with impugnity and who cares about his family; atheist dead guy = "SHUT UP!"
So not only your defense of Hitchens, but your bashing of Fallwell--stating he deserved what Hitchens did--shows your hypcrisy.
You mind if I just sit over here and watch you dig your grave a little deeper?
Taniwha said: "Why claim humans need God to decide what might be right or wrong when our every day life proves that wrong."
ReplyDeleteTaniwha, an objective standard is something apart from man (objective in its own right). Your counter argument equivocates between subjective standard and objective standard.
Taniwha said: "Types of objective standard exists for many things."
Speedlimits, medical standards based upon clinical trials etc, and the like, which you used as examples of objective standards, are all subjective standards.
Consider for example a medical standards that says take two of these per day, but also comes with a warning: NOTE: some may experience side effects including ..". This is precisely because the standard is subjective, not objective. There is nothing objective about making a speed limit 100 km/h rather than say 101.74 km/h.
By your use of subjective standards above, as examples of 'objective standards' you show that you don't understand the whole argument about subjective vs objective. (Incidentally, I agree with you that everyday life has many examples of standards; they just all happen to be subjective. That's the wonderful about subjective standards - there are so many)
The lack of middle-ground I referred to above is a logical necessity. It's called the law of excluded middle. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time.
A standard of ethics must either be objective in the sense that something is indeed truly right or wrong apart from our opinions about it, or it must be subjective in that it is related to preference (communal or individual).
Steve has raise the issue of opinion in his debate with you for that very reason.
If what he did was really wrong, apart from his opinion of it, you believe in objective morals, and cannot be a consistent atheist as a consequence.
On the subject of "standards," it's customary to distinguish between laws of utility (e.g. "rules of the road") and laws of morality (e.g. prohibitions against murder). A traffic code is a social convention, not a moral norm.
ReplyDeleteFrom November 5th 2010 Godless Gaffe from Triabologue
ReplyDeleteTaniwha wrote the following:
"GREV said: I conducted my first funeral in 1990. How many reading these comments were even born or out of grade 6? Please, don't tell me.
Hi Grev i left school bound for work back in 1977.
You want a minister of the gospel to be there? Well, this is what I am obligated, commanded to speak about.
Grev that seems fine.People have asked for it.But if somebody whos know well to be extra kind and caring (ex Christian from bible uni claimed agnostic atheist) suddenly died.Would you feel any great need to quickly rush around to his house or blog and abuptly say you felt some sort of need to pity him. At least not without also offering up some kind and caring and comforting words also?
Shalom
Peace and all the very best Grev.
11/04/2010 10:42 PM
Taniwha said:
GREV said: Luke 13:1-9
Sorry GREV i still fail to see where this connects to offending the grieving friends of the dead.
GREV im wondering out of interest. If you had offended friends of a recently dead person whos blood hard hardly had the time to cool. Would it still be totally beyound you to simply apologize for offending, even if you still felt only this abrupt sense of pity for them.
11/04/2010 11:03 PM "
Hello:
Well it is nice to know that I am not the only old person on this site.
Would I offer comfort and care to a person regardless of their beliefs?
The answer is Yes.
Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove is a favourite saying of mine. The direct citation from the Gospels escapes me at this moment.
Wisdom dictates that I be present with people and be open to where they are and the questions they have.
Wisdom dictates that I speak to and relate to a person on the level where they are.
So ... if a person wants to discuss hard issues we shall discuss the hard issues. If they wish to numb and discuss nothing I can talk about the Evil Empire with the best of them. Evil Empire should be recognized I hope as a label for the New York Yankees.
Wisdom dictates that a soft answer turns away wrath.
My reference to Luke 13 concerns those who want to discuss hard issues like where is God when tragedy strikes. Well, God in that passage gave an interesting answer.
Certainly, I find it easy to render an apology to someone when words spoken have been received as harsh.
I neither feel an apology detracts from what believe it rather calls to mind a choice. When a reed is bruised it is said Messiah will not break that reed.
I am called to be His follower so my choice is clear.
Likewise, when someone violently opposes the gospel, wisdom dictates to move onto other things. God is the one who saves I cannot.
Im sorry i was unable to come back and continue on with this conversation again yesterday as i was busy dealing with other matters.I will answer the comments today as my time allows me to do so.It may need to also be done in between doing some chores
ReplyDeletePatrick Chan said: Um, no, I never deleted them. In fact, I didn't even know your comments had been relegated to the spam box until I read your comment saying they were. I know Blogger has issues. I don't know about this specific issue. But you should check out their blog. I'm in school and have to study for exams so I don't have the time to check it out right now. Maybe after exams I can look into it.
Hello Patrick.It seems you have misunderstood what i was trying to explain.
I was making an apology and admitting i now see it would have been a lot better for me to ask Steve the question,IE ask :was it you who deleted the comments Steve.Rather than concluding maybe it was
Talking about the difference between asking was it? ,and concluding maybe it was.
However i also gave my reason of what had helped this confusion and misunderstanding to arise,IE: why would Steve have posted only small parts of my comment.
There has been some confusing phenomena happening.For instance how could ἐκκλησία see my comment to enable ἐκκλησία to read and then reply to a part of one of my comments,when that comment had obviously also disappeared at some stage.Its known to have disappeared because Patrick you also had to restore these comments and later wrote back to me : Yes, I've restored your comments.
I understand now that it seems likely that my comments had not disappeared right away.Meaning ἐκκλησία first had time to read what i had said.This would explain how ἐκκλησία was able to reply.Even if it doesnt completely explain the strange phenomena of posts appearing and hanging around for quite some time,before suddenly deciding on totally disappearing out of view.
I hope you understand, my trying to understand why Steve might only post parts of my comment is what also helped with building the confusion i had.I thought to myself if Steve is seen to be able to read and repost parts of my comment ,why then doesnt he just go ahead and repost the whole comments that have disappeared.
Anyway hope this confusion has left no longterm hard feelings,i apologise again, and simply say thanks for restoring all my comments Patrick.
1 of 2
ReplyDeleteIm sorry i was unable to come back and continue on with this conversation again yesterday as i was busy dealing with other matters.I will answer the comments today as my time allows me to do so.It may need to also be done in between doing some chores
Patrick Chan said: Um, no, I never deleted them. In fact, I didn't even know your comments had been relegated to the spam box until I read your comment saying they were. I know Blogger has issues. I don't know about this specific issue. But you should check out their blog. I'm in school and have to study for exams so I don't have the time to check it out right now. Maybe after exams I can look into it.
Hello Patrick.It seems you have misunderstood what i was trying to explain.
I was making an apology and admitting i now see it would have been a lot better for me to ask Steve the question,IE ask :was it you who deleted the comments Steve.Rather than concluding maybe it was
Talking about the difference between asking was it? ,and concluding maybe it was.
However i also gave my reason of what had helped this confusion and misunderstanding to arise,IE: why would Steve have posted only small parts of my comment.
There has been some confusing phenomena happening.For instance how could ἐκκλησία see my comment to enable ἐκκλησία to read and then reply to a part of one of my comments,when that comment had obviously also disappeared at some stage.Its known to have disappeared because Patrick you also had to restore these comments and later wrote back to me : Yes, I've restored your comments.
2 of 2
ReplyDeleteI understand now that it seems likely that my comments had not disappeared right away.Meaning ἐκκλησία first had time to read what i had said.This would explain how ἐκκλησία was able to reply.Even if it doesnt completely explain the strange phenomena of posts appearing and hanging around for quite some time,before suddenly deciding on totally disappearing out of view.
I hope you understand, my trying to understand why Steve might only post parts of my comment is what also helped with building the confusion i had.I thought to myself if Steve is seen to be able to read and repost parts of my comment ,why then doesnt he just go ahead and repost the whole comments that have disappeared.
Anyway hope this confusion has left no longterm hard feelings,i apologise again, and simply say thanks for restoring all my comments Patrick.
I see one comments has already gone,so comments are still disappearing.Best i can do is post my comment in parts.And wait for Patrick to kindly restore the comments that disappeared when he has the time.
ReplyDelete1 of 3
Patrick Chan said...That's not my "opinion." That's your "opinion." I'm just going off what you said.
No Patrick thats not my opinion at all, as it is also a very wrong opinion.Speed limits are relative to different areas,and even though these laws are only relative to thought and decision of men.It doesnt give me or anyone else the right to choose and do as i please.
1. Do animals think of themselves as having emotions like "anger" and "empathy"? That it's moral or ethical for them to do this or not do that? Rather, you're anthropomorphizing animals without arguing for it.
No Patrick unlike humans, dogs and cat minds have not evolved with quite the same ability to fully understand the emotions they have.However this does not have to mean they dont have emotions that help control their action.
2 of 3
ReplyDeletePatrick: 2. You only talk about the animal "ethics" you find acceptable. But what about the ones you might not find acceptable? Some animals have evolved with the desire to eat their mates. That's what black widows and praying mantises sometimes do. So does this mean you're fine with those humans who were or are cannibals since, after all, some animals do that? etc
Patrick animal minds and actions have simply evolved the differnt ways they have.Your argument here seems circular.As a faithful person who is a believer do you feel angry at God for creating these things in animals?.It doesnt help anything by you being angry about it does it right?.So just as you accept God created them this way,an atheist can accept its just the way that different animals have evolved.
Just as you have a way to find animal ethic acceptable , atheists too have ways to understand and find it acceptable.
Once again that ethic is relative to animal mind,but that still doesnt mean that what ever they feel like doing is always ok in the social society we have where animals need to find ways to suvive while others try eating them.Your God created spiders,lions,snakes that try to bite and kill you Patrick.Do you agree to always abide by the will of your God who created them, and allow to let them animals choose to do as they please?.
3 of 3
ReplyDeleteOr are your own actions controlled by your emotion also and relative to our human social society Patrick.
Dont forget in your world God created animals to kill and eat you.Without use of the written excuses also contained within your faith book,it could easily be said by will of your God, your worldview suggests you should possibly freely allow any snakes and lions the right to chew on you and your children as much as they please.
However very conveniently the faithful have also included words within their books to allow them to excuse their action of preventing or killing any animals or insects that try biting them.
Patrick life works out no better for the social society of humanity to allow it to be ok that Lions eat humans than it does for us to allow cannibils
Faithful simply insert the added idea of a God that said its ok for man to decide lions and cannibils really cannot be allowed to bite or eat men.Non believers simply leave out the God idea ,and admit it really doesnt work out all that well for our harmony in a social society thats dominated by us human.
Animals will often decide on their own group ethical harmony traits in much the same way.
Ethic is relative to differnt groups of beings Patrick.Human are of the Human group thats become dominant.It is not so very differnt that some human were once known as cannibals, anymore than we know some packs of lions didnt eat elephant.Or that some animal will eat their own while other wont.
And please dont try and suggest im suggesting cannibalism is fine.We human as a group have evolved with brains that find cannibilism abhorent to our senses.
1 of 3
ReplyDeletePatrick Chan said:
(Cont.)
1. What you've said commits a well-known fallacy: you're deducing ethical sentiments from natural facts.
Yes i do understand thats your faithful opinion Patrick.And in return my opinion is that indeed its actually you thats committing a fallacy here, a type of fallacy that is also fast becoming well known too as obviously being a fallacy.
The fallacy is that you as a believer have been extremely mistaken by believing that human ethical suntiments can objectivly said as having been involved with the mind of any deities, when indeed it is also a fact that all human ethical thought,first must also have need to pass through the mind of human.Meaning honestly God cannot even be claimed to have been able to provide these type of objective morals that could be claimed as totally deviod of mans thought and opinion, that the believer trys claiming God provided.
What moral can honestly be said as being more Godly objective between the use of your mind Patrick, or an Islamists mind or my mind to decide what it might be more moral Patrick?.Do you claim the mere fact that personally you also read a faith book, automatically happens to give you the right to demand to claim it so?.
I suggest that would be completely illogical of you, and would be unfair and unjust as well.
It is you that lives by a great fallacy Patrick.For indeed your objective moral cannot honestly be claimed as being anymore an objective type moral, than that of the Islamist,Hindu,Buddhist or atheist or anyone else either.
Atleast not in the type of objective sense you try claiming.
2 of 2
ReplyDeletePatrick :2. What you've said doesn't account for competing ethical desires. Not to mention the fact that it's posible for us to override those desires even though according to you we're evolutionarily hardwired for those desires.
Again thats mistaken and untrue Patrick.Most often we dont live in governments of indevidual anarchy, most often groups of humans have all lived in types of social societies.Seems to me this suggestion of yours worring about the personal desires of the indevidual having ability of overriding, is a type of smelly old slippery red herring used to try and make non believers look unruly and bad.Its propaganda Patrick.Whats more its also both dishonest and very unjust, even if this wrongful judgement is only a misunderstanding and is more about being mistaken.
Its still long overdue and about time that if the faithful wish for non believers to start to also be more accepting of the faithful in social society.That the faithful also humble themselves a little more and get down off their high horses and stop with this trying to portray the non believers as being those who are only immoral.
Need we non believers need remind the faithful of many immoral past practices faithful have also been involved in?.
If not.Then why is there this persisting need to judge non believers as being the immoralist humans?.
Pride?
3of3
ReplyDelete3. Nothing you've said grounds objective morality and ethics. In fact what you've said undercuts objective morality and ethics. Sure, it may be "natural" for you to "feel the emotion of some empathy and a little sadness" in this case. But again what's "natural" isn't necessarily what's ethical or unethical. It's just a feeling. You can't say it's right or wrong to feel this or that way. And you can't say it's right or wrong to act this or that way. Therefore you have no grounds to criticize us for feeling or acting a different way.
No i totally disagree.You are misunderstanding and totally forgetting the fact we human most often do live in groups in our social societies, and do not live in some dictatorship governed by a dictator or only by opinion of the indevidual anarchrist.
Its another red herring you use.
1 of 2
ReplyDeletesteve said: Your opinion of my opinion.
Hello Steve yes thats correct.However its not only my opinion either.
Yes, since he gives a supporting argument, and you don’t.
Your opinion once again Steve.Your opinion basically comes down to this, faithful read a bible and atheists dont, therefore this makes faithful morals more moral than atheist morals are.
What type of supporting argument is that Steve?.
There’s no safety net for folks like you who willfully misinterpret the verse. If you fall to your death (to play along with the metaphor), that’s your fault.
In my opinion Steve your metaphor is easily shown to be extremely lacking.With regard to the analogy do you suggest a fall has its own mind like a deity does ?.Or are you maybe suggesting deties are mindless beings, like falls are?.
There is just no winning for folks who willingly make mistakes about the idea of our falls also having its own mind, like i had understood theists thought God does.
You don’t make a serious effort to understand the verse.
Says you.
Guess Steve would also throw total blime on any of his young children too if they didnt fully understand the danger of roads.Dad Steve has absolutely no responsibility to caring enough about making completely sure his children do fully understand.
Kid gets flattened by truck on road ,dad Steve gets angry and says ,oh well, its all your fault son, i didnt exactly actually mean kids really should be playing on roads.Learn to listen better next time you silly stupid kids.And learn to take lots more notes so you can understand when im only using metaphor.And i dont really care less how hard you find it,thats just tough luck for you.
Thats being understanding?.Blame it all on the children.
2 of 2
ReplyDeleteStoning would hardly qualify as “extended torture,” but even if it did, your disapproval of torture is just your opinion (as you’re wont to say). And if a torturer gets a kick out of torture, well, that’s his opinion, too.
No not extended?.How about allowing a mob of angry people the right to pick up rocks and stones and see how many try aiming to kill you fast or how many try killing you slow Steve.Great way to help decide whether death by stoning, was used as a speedy way or slow way to kill people.
Its a red herring you try to use too Steve, trying to suggest its only my opinion.
Now you’re changing the subject. Your original objection involved an allusion to a recorded gang rape in Scripture.
Not at all, just poiting out how extremely important it was that faith books explain exactly what they mean.
If you think gang rape is wrong, that’s just your opinion–remember? And if the rapist thinks that gang-rape is good clean fun, well that’s just his opinion, right?
No Steve again thats another red herring you use, because most often we humans as social beings live in social societies, not dictatorships or under rule anarchy.
1 of 1
ReplyDeletesteve said: i) Why would I agree to that? According to you, your morality is relative to your brain, while the morality of the rapist is relative to his brain. Why does your relative morality trump his relative morality?,
Steve moarality is relative to peoples brain.The attitude and actions of many who call themselves faithful believers and faithful to the morals of God, seem to also prove it to be so.Dont you agree?.
My morals dont trump anyones.We live in social groups in a type of social society which does have moral thought as a collective of humans.
ii) In addition, you’re still too thick to get the point. The fact that Scripture records a case of gang-rape is not an endorsement of gang-rape.
I see Steve you feel some need to be easy to anger,and revert to this abuse of calling me thick.Do other Christians here condone this sort of behaviour?,guess so if they dont speak up and say otherwise.Is this line of argument coming from the argument that atheist calls Christian thick ,so that then makes it fine for Christians to call people these names also?.Can you please explain.
And you still dont seem to understand me Steve.My opinion is that many things written within these faith books at times has helped cause very many mistakes to be made.People treated people wrongfully.Even as slaves.Some women were mistreated and abused.
Since you don’t argue in good faith, rational dialogue is impossible.
Steve explain why i dont argue in any good faith.Is my arument any worse than yours?,have i felt need to call you thick,ignorant,unintelligent and as being into sexist stereotyping?.
Please kindly show evidence of where i have.
2 of 2
ReplyDeleteSteve No, it’s not just my opinion. It’s the “opinion” of atheist thinkers who admit that atheism lacks the resources to underwrite objective moral norms.
Not all atheist thinkers agree.Myself and plenty of others disagree with those who do try suggesting such unfounded things.
Like Muslim cultures which decide gang-rape and honor-killings are a suitable punishment for a girl to brought shame on the family name.
Yes Steve thankfully for once i can agree that is very correct, and do you know that these Muslim just like the Christian does, also try telling us that they honestly believe that their objective moral that tells them to rape and do honor-killings came from their God.
Do you now see how this actually proves that its not God but instead indeed its man thats actually in control of what humans can try to claim as being this objective moral given by God.
But that’s just your opinion, which is relative to your evolutionary brain. Falwell had different opinions which were relative to his evolutionary brain. Moreover, Falwell’s subculture decided to make opposition to homosexual rights a social standard. We do that all the time, right?
Steve no do please try to learn to better understand that we human do live in a type of social society.And so its not just my opinion at all.
However i do agree with you Steve ,that Falwell’s subculture was what helped influence his opinion.
Just as certain unfortunate situations coupled along with a certian type of subculture surrounding Hitler at times, also helped influence the thought of Hitler to become the hater of Jews that he was.
1 of 2
ReplyDeletePeter Pike said: Yup, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Christian dead guy = mock him with impugnity and who cares about his family; atheist dead guy = "SHUT UP!"
Hello again Peter. No to be completely honest i feel that is not quite what i had said about matters at all.
So not only your defense of Hitchens, but your bashing of Fallwell--stating he deserved what Hitchens did--shows your hypcrisy.
Pete im glad you dislike hypocrisy. Please do be kind enough to show evidence of where i said fallwell deserved it?.
As far as i can see so far by looking back at what i wrote in my comment it seems i was more interested in pointing out the difference between Ken and Fallwell.And thats where i still stand.
Pete im interested, do you feel Ken was against civil rights and was also vocal of dislike of gay folk and at some time was thought as being also actively involved in condoning aparthied ?.Im very interested if this is the suggestion you make.
To show us you are not involved in this hypocrisy that it seems you obviously throughly abhor,please be kind enough to show some examples of how you compare Ken to Fallwell.
Or are you saying that its your Christian belief that all sinners will indeed also be judge by God of being all guilty of exactly the very same crimes.
2 of 2
ReplyDeletePeter Pike.
IE:Do you believe that murderers will be found guilty and be judged the very same way and be convicted to the very same coviction of dept, as that what a shop lifter will also be judged of and have need to pay for.
IE Murderer and Shop lifter = same conviction and same ammount of dept
Just trying to understand your reasoning of seeming to be a Christian fully condoning the treatment of Ken.
How many other Christian here on this blog condone such treatment?.So far by the silence almost seems like most here do.Understanding these things helps us understand Calvinists.
You mind if I just sit over here and watch you dig your grave a little deeper?
Ok i guess, if thats how you feel it is.
1 of 4
ReplyDeleteἐκκλησία said: Taniwha, an objective standard is something apart from man (objective in its own right). Your counter argument equivocates between subjective standard and objective standard.
Hello again ἐκκλησία and thanks for your patience and kindness.I think i understand.Its kind of like most often its really objective (in its own right) of mans personal thought,as to us deciding whether man can be eaten by crocodiles and lions.Thinking Crocs and lions dont eat men,most often wont ever help stop them doing so.
Speedlimits, medical standards based upon clinical trials etc, and the like, which you used as examples of objective standards, are all subjective standards.
Consider for example a medical standards that says take two of these per day, but also comes with a warning: NOTE: some may experience side effects including ..". This is precisely because the standard is subjective, not objective. There is nothing objective about making a speed limit 100 km/h rather than say 101.74 km/h.
continued
2 of 4
ReplyDeletecontinued
Sorry ἐκκλησία i fail to see why.Let say we use the speed 100km/h and 250km/h for the speed limit used in general around town.Now how subjective will conclusion of the answers be to the personal group thought of the men deciding, as to whether Speeds of 100km/h will be likely to cause less death than 250km/h does.
There is no way in general road use, that speed of 250km/h around town will be safe.(please note this test does not include allowence to build more modern roads)
And what is completely objective of human tests and any personal opinion indeed is the fact remains, pills and medication do sometimes effect some people differently.It does not matter so much about any tests we make or our personal thought and opinion.People do react differnt to medication.
Sure subjective standards also exist.Some pills happen to effect some people different than others.
But objective standards exist too. Tell me ἐκκλησία, how subjective is conclusion of thought of man, with regards to conclusion of whether outcome of a direct hit from skud missile to the head of human, is going to cause death or continued life of human?.Does it really matter what different mens personal thoughts or tests on the likely outcome is going to be?.
Dont think so.The factual conclusion remains completely objective of mans personal tests or thoughts.
3 of 4
ReplyDeleteἐκκλησία: By your use of subjective standards above, as examples of 'objective standards' you show that you don't understand the whole argument about subjective vs objective. (Incidentally, I agree with you that everyday life has many examples of standards; they just all happen to be subjective. That's the wonderful about subjective standards - there are so many)
No i feel they are not all subjective ἐκκλησία.There is plenty of conclusions that is still objective of our personal human thought, without need of advice from God.
The lack of middle-ground I referred to above is a logical necessity. It's called the law of excluded middle. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time.
A standard of ethics must either be objective in the sense that something is indeed truly right or wrong apart from our opinions about it, or it must be subjective in that it is related to preference (communal or individual).
The golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you, sometimes has middle ground in my opinion ἐκκλησία.For instance if i like to be kissed and cuddled and be taken advantage of by the opposite sex in a sexual way as they please,should i freely kiss cuddle and have sex with others as i please too?.I like to have people remind me of my age,should i remind everyone else of all other peoples ages too?.Its said to be very wrong to use euthanasia for our human loved ones who are suffering extremely, but yet is said as also being extremely unthoughtful and completely disgusting and totally nasty to let any of our pets go through such extreme suffering in such a way.
No middle ground?.
All things are not always so black and white im afraid.
4 of 4
ReplyDeleteἐκκλησία :Steve has raise the issue of opinion in his debate with you for that very reason.
If what he did was really wrong, apart from his opinion of it, you believe in objective morals, and cannot be a consistent atheist as a consequence.
Yes i believe in there being some objective morals ἐκκλησία.Non believers can have some objective type morals just the very same way as we can decide by use objective conclusion to that yes a direct skud missile to the head will cause human death.
Most often ἐκκλησία,the conclusion of death being caused after direct hit of skud missile, is not really so subject to any humans tests or opinions.
Do we really need to write another holy book to remind us, direct hit from skud missile to human head will cause us instant death?.No.
This objective standard is completely consistant with thought of non believer.And what i
personally think
effect of direct hit of this skud missile might be, has absolutely no bearing on the truth of fact of what will happen.
Subjective tests and opinion wont change truth and fact of outcome.
steve said: On the subject of "standards," it's customary to distinguish between laws of utility (e.g. "rules of the road") and laws of morality (e.g. prohibitions against murder). A traffic code is a social convention, not a moral norm.
ReplyDeleteHello Steve.Yes it may be customary.But maybe its also due to these very customs you speak of too , that sadly many humans that are made to suffer extremely while dieing , have need to be always made to suffer on needlessly this way.
While thankfully our pets and animals should never be made to be suffering extremely this way.
Custom is maybe not always the very best way to decide whats best, right wrong or even moral.
Unless you changed your mind Steve, and now think the ancient act of stoning people to death, and the Muslim honor killing is ok?.
Its customary too, right?
GREV said: Hello:
ReplyDeleteWell it is nice to know that I am not the only old person on this site.
Hello Grev.Thanks and its very nice having you around too.
Would I offer comfort and care to a person regardless of their beliefs?
The answer is Yes.
Grev i already felt i knew what your answer might be.
Be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove is a favourite saying of mine. The direct citation from the Gospels escapes me at this moment.
Never mind what escapes you at this moment.Im glad you are here to help inspire me.
Wisdom dictates that I be present with people and be open to where they are and the questions they have.
Wisdom dictates that I speak to and relate to a person on the level where they are.
Thanks to you i shall try best i can to keep following suit Grev ,and do likewise
So ... if a person wants to discuss hard issues we shall discuss the hard issues. If they wish to numb and discuss nothing I can talk about the Evil Empire with the best of them. Evil Empire should be recognized I hope as a label for the New York Yankees.
Wisdom dictates that a soft answer turns away wrath.
Yes and thanks to your presence Grev you help to soften my heart.
My reference to Luke 13 concerns those who want to discuss hard issues like where is God when tragedy strikes. Well, God in that passage gave an interesting answer.
Certainly, I find it easy to render an apology to someone when words spoken have been received as harsh.
I neither feel an apology detracts from what believe it rather calls to mind a choice. When a reed is bruised it is said Messiah will not break that reed.
Grev i think Ken would still have been thankful to have spent some time among Christian people.Maybe he wasnt a believer anymore but still i doubt that had effected or changed his ability to be extra caring kind.And i agree totally an apology does not detract from what we believe.Even an agnostic or atheist realizes some mistakes will be made.
I am called to be His follower so my choice is clear.
Likewise, when someone violently opposes the gospel, wisdom dictates to move onto other things. God is the one who saves I cannot.
I hope you dont think im being violent here Grev.I hope you didnt ever feel that way about Ken either.
Peace to you Grev.You help make this world a slightly better place to live.
1 of 2
ReplyDeleteSteve said : They keep crowing about the rational superiority of atheism, and the rational inferiority of Christianity. So I call their bluff. And that's all it is. It takes very little time to expose their losing hand.
That's a useful exercise. It disarms them. Leaves them without a shield to hide behind.
aztexan said : If you are an atheist, you are part of the problem, and that without excuse. I don't feel sorry for you; I DO feel contempt for you. I don't weep for your soul or pray endlessly for your salvation; I DO, admittedly, pray sometimes for your extinction. And here is the money shot in your eye, you insufferable Christophobic twit: I'll get my wish in the end.
Hello aztexan.A good day to you sir.May the sun shine brightly in your window.
I hope you dont mind me saying, but to be honest you do sound extremely upset.You sure do sound like you might also lose it real easy like Steve and Peter Pike seem to do.To be honest i dont understand hot headed people who lose it so easy this way.Some people say its even bad for these peoples health and heart to let themselves quickly fall to peices this way.artexan do you ever worry it might be having a detrimental effect on your heath?.
artexan thanks for kindly bringing up the serious matter of how Steve becomes infuriated to hear atheists start crowing about the rational superiority of atheism, and the rational inferiority of Christianity
artexan do you Steve and Peter personally suggest showing the rational superiority of Calvinist Christians,is best shown by Calvinist Christians being seen to easily become extremely infuriated and retaliate by getting angry?.Do Calvinist Christians suggest its this ease of anger that helps them display they have more intelligence?.Is it this infuriated display of anger, that Calvinist feel helps expose that Calvinists hold the winning hand?.
2 of 2
ReplyDeleteGREV can you please help explain.You seem very different to some other Calvinist Christians here on this blog.You seem far more level headed to me.Some other Christians here do seem to me to take on a persona that almost seems more like wild dogs frothing at the mouth.
Still waiting and hoping that at some stage Calvinist Peter Pike might find the time to come back and display the evidence that he used to compare Fallwell and Ken the way he did.And answer my questions.
But artexan if im understanding you correct, you suggest Calvinist Christians feel a superior intelligence is best displayed by their infuriated ease of anger?.
aztexan:Thanks again, Steve. You're doing the Lord's work here -- keep it up.
artexan do you suggest the superior intelligence of the lord was to become infuriated extremely easy?.Its tough understanding Calvinists.But i guess this does at least match with some peoples thoughts, who say to them the God of the bible seemed like a real monster.
Reactions from Calvinists here on this blog have been extremely enlightening for me about Calvinism.
aztexan said:
ReplyDeleteTaniwha: Who is infuriated here, dear? Be assured it isn't me. In fact, I find the unflinching practice of good ol' Calvinist honesty to be among the best guards against anger, rage, etc. The emotions you mention are most often the result of thoughts and opinions needlessly -- and hazardously -- pent-up within. Obviously our Non-Calvs fall prey to this folly, believing as they do that the Gospel requires salesmanship over honesty. Poor uptight souls. It's as though they think it wise to store oily emotional rags atop their pile of epistemological cord wood.
Hello again aztexan.Wonderful, now see how much better you feel when you have finally settled down a bit.Stopped all the frothing at the mouth.Expending all that wasted emotion of hating the people you dont weep for.Exposing the rage as you said thats pent-up inside, with your use of capital letters saying I DO this and I DO,admittedly, pray sometimes for your extinction. Saying And here is the money shot in your eye, you insufferable Christophobic twit: I'll get my wish in the end.
You sure do also sound like one real unhappy-chappy aztexan ?.Why allow yourself to get so very wound up and upset?.Does Calvinism always effect most of its own followers this way?.It seems like its making you people so unhappy frustrated and sad.
Smelly old oily rags are not that good for much anymore are they aztexan?.People i know that use old rags to wipe up old oil or something, mostly simply get rid of them old rags,before them old smelly oily rags go and clutter the workshop up and even end up tripping somebody over.And they dont ever keep them on the wood pile aztexan,do your Calvinist friends do this?
Please do explain aztexan.Do you honestly feel it really acheives anything much for Calvinism, other than maybe making a bit of a crazy spectacle of yourselves, to let yourseves get all hot and bothered like you do?.
Our group is trying to learn how to understand behaviour of the Calvinist type faiths.
.Expending all that wasted emotion of hating the people you dont weep for
ReplyDeleteAnother accusation of hatred without evidence. Taniwha, this is a worse offense than I've committed. Your hypocrisy is pitiful.
TANIWHA,
ReplyDeleteAztexan is clearly a sockpuppet. Try not to be so easily taken in.
Taniwha said:
ReplyDeleteAgain thats mistaken and untrue Patrick.Most often we dont live in governments of indevidual anarchy, most often groups of humans have all lived in types of social societies.Seems to me this suggestion of yours worring about the personal desires of the indevidual having ability of overriding, is a type of smelly old slippery red herring used to try and make non believers look unruly and bad.Its propaganda Patrick.Whats more its also both dishonest and very unjust, even if this wrongful judgement is only a misunderstanding and is more about being mistaken.
1. I won't take the time to reply to everything Taniwha has said. Frankly, it's mainly just a bunch of huff and puff. It'd be a waste of our time to keep responding to such blather. (As any reasonable person can see if they read Taniwha's comments.)
2. I will say though that I never said unbelievers are immoral. Rather, I said that based on Taniwha's comments, unbelievers like Taniwha have no grounds for objective morality. That's a huge difference which Taniwha evidently can't grasp. Still.
3. Finally, I'll just note that Taniwha has been judgmental toward us. Taniwha has used harsh words against us. Taniwha has said and insinuated that we're engaging in "propaganda," that we're "dishonest," that we're "very unjust" ("even if this wrongful judgement is only a misunderstanding and is more about being mistaken"), that we're not "humble," etc. If Taniwha doesn't think it's right for people to behave like this, then one wonders why Taniwha behaves like this.