tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116857248458577093..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Atheist Eschatology and the False ProphetsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168754796234338022007-01-14T01:06:00.000-05:002007-01-14T01:06:00.000-05:00Anonymous,T-stone claimed my post argued that we'r...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>T-stone claimed my post argued that we're in the same place as secular eschatology. But of course my post claimed no such thing.<BR/><BR/>As far as bahnsenburner, apparently you didn't read my post - the one he responded to. And so since all we're doing is asserting: he was "devastated." Stinks to be him.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168737720539910302007-01-13T20:22:00.000-05:002007-01-13T20:22:00.000-05:00wow...Paul got PWNED by touchstone AGAIN!!! its a...wow...Paul got PWNED by touchstone AGAIN!!! its almost too easy!<BR/><BR/>Paul, you also got devastated over at bahnsenburner in a number of recent posts.<BR/><BR/>Stinks to be you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168703224122263242007-01-13T10:47:00.000-05:002007-01-13T10:47:00.000-05:00I didn't need that part in ther Boy George because...I didn't need that part in ther Boy George because my point has to do with there actually being no cosmic value and meaning.<BR/><BR/>My point was, *given the view* that meaning and value is subjectively assigned, then what's the problem wioth a molester assigning himself the value of "lover of children?"<BR/><BR/>So, the "even if" did not affect my point.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you want to say that there possibily *is* cosmic value and meaning, that is objective, well now we're back to the other problem.<BR/><BR/>Or, if you just want to remain *agnostic* about our origens, our purpose, etc., then as I said above, you have a defeater for all your beliefs.<BR/><BR/>glad I could help,<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168685705931262112007-01-13T05:55:00.000-05:002007-01-13T05:55:00.000-05:00Paul,Actually, she said:"...even if no cosmic mean...Paul,<BR/><BR/>Actually, <I>she</I> said:<BR/><BR/>"...<B>even if</B> no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance..."<BR/><BR/>Very convenient of you to have left off the boldened part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168658310182739792007-01-12T22:18:00.000-05:002007-01-12T22:18:00.000-05:00Boy George,No, I simply said that a child molester...Boy George,<BR/><BR/>No, I simply said that a child molester could assign the subjective value to his life that he chose to.<BR/><BR/>You'll note that I said there was nothing objectively wrong with him assigning subjective value to his life.<BR/><BR/>I never said that the act itself wasn't wrong, just the assignment of value, which the above commenter said in his post.<BR/><BR/>So, as usual, you forget to even apply critical reading skills to just a few sentences a theist writes, let alone an entire book.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But, to take it further, given the atheist that I responded to, I don't see how any "objective morals" could exist. Remember, he said,<BR/><BR/>"no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance"<BR/><BR/>And given this outlook, one would have a defeater for all his beliefs, including his ethical ones. So, even though I'm not guilty if the crime yoiu accuse me of, I wouldn't have been even if I did what you said.<BR/><BR/>Now, I could go off on a tangent about how careless internet atheists seem to be these days, but I don't feel like chasing that.<BR/><BR/>I've had my say.<BR/><BR/>best,<BR/><BR/>~PMErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168653217872445072007-01-12T20:53:00.000-05:002007-01-12T20:53:00.000-05:00Paul,As usual, you commit a non sequitur as you le...Paul,<BR/><BR/>As usual, you commit a <I>non sequitur</I> as you leap from ones sense of self-purpose to the issues surrounding moral duties, obligations, and properties.<BR/><BR/>I don't feel like chasing off after that red herring. I've had my say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168647864105358382007-01-12T19:24:00.000-05:002007-01-12T19:24:00.000-05:00"I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated asp...<I>"I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic meaning exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically subjective character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life nonexistent? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant."</I><BR/><BR/>So you subjectively assign value to your life, even though there objectively is none.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the admission.<BR/><BR/>Atheists choose to ignore reality and invent stories for themselves.<BR/><BR/>But then they complain that Christians invent religion and ignore the scientific finding of "the real world."<BR/><BR/>At any rate, since it's subjective then there's nothing objectively wrong with the child molester who subjectively assigns his life the value and purpose of "lover of children."Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168644065708968342007-01-12T18:21:00.000-05:002007-01-12T18:21:00.000-05:00You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I...<I>You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?).</I><BR/><BR/>I like the way Richard Taylor has illustrated aspects of Sisyphus to point out that, even if no cosmic <B>meaning</B> exists, or no objective measure by which to measure progress or significance, we cannot deny that value has intrinsically <I>subjective</I> character. I think this applies well to your question. Let us assume that when the sun expands to swallow the earth, that this is the end of mankind. Does that render the value I have for my own life <I>nonexistent</I>? No. It only renders it cosmically and objectively insignificant.<BR/><BR/>I have no vision of utopia. Progress may be an end in itself.<BR/><BR/><I>Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)</I><BR/><BR/>My meaning can be derived from whatever I find valuable -- from the happiness of my spouse to the rolling of my rock up a hill.<BR/><BR/><I>I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven?</I><BR/><BR/>Perhaps not, in the ultimate sense. Perhaps we are all just shadows and dust, in the cosmic sense, striving against the unstoppable wind which scatters us abroad. But what ought we do? Find no beauty? Find no meaning? Have no values? It is impossible to do otherwise.<BR/><BR/><I>And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe.</I><BR/><BR/>Some. Most of a Christian's meaning is derived from their sense of self and family, much of which is based on experience and reality. So long as the believer thinks that God is happy with them, this equates to their being a good person, and being "on the right path". This gives them the same sort of tranquility that I have in being on that same "right path" and in being "a good person". Myths are not necessarily false, as they can illustrate truths.<BR/><BR/><I>I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?</I><BR/><BR/>Death is too much for our self-awareness to bear. Futility leads to despair. And that is why every culture throughout history invented religions and religious myths. Neandertals have even been found with the evidence of death rites and rituals at their gravesites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168643953550509212007-01-12T18:19:00.000-05:002007-01-12T18:19:00.000-05:00T-stone,Unfortunatley you missed the point of the ...T-stone,<BR/><BR/>Unfortunatley you missed the point of the post. Please re-read as I don't have the time to battle back and forth with you until you get it, and then enter another debate with you critiquing the real idea of the post. Hint: I think the pre-mill, immanent return, newspaper exegetes are wrong and silly. I'm claiming *some* atheists are just as bad as the Christians (who hold wong beliefsd and make silly claims) who they ridicule.<BR/><BR/>My eschatological views remain unscathed amongst the majority of atheist scoffing.<BR/><BR/>Aaron N,<BR/><BR/>I have a tux on also, that makes me even better.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168643187590132672007-01-12T18:06:00.000-05:002007-01-12T18:06:00.000-05:00paul,I must say that I am a little envious of your...paul,<BR/><BR/>I must say that I am a little envious of your new profile picture: posing with a "bum" is quite clever of you -- no other method to boost one's image comes close to using such a contrast.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'll go for that on my next album cover.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168638043224755272007-01-12T16:40:00.000-05:002007-01-12T16:40:00.000-05:00Paul,It's a pretty poor place to be in for Christi...Paul,<BR/><BR/>It's a pretty poor place to be in for Christians if our arguements amount to: <I>well, secular eschatology ain't perfect either!</I>. Indeed, it's not, but it's wise to remember something you seem to have overlooked in this post: eschatology is a completely different dynamic for the atheist than the Christian. <BR/><BR/>If divine eschatological claims are made in the Bible -- and they are -- then wayward followers who blunder into the foolishness of imminent predictions of Christ's return necessarily carry some "embarrassment-by-association" for the rest of us Christians, simply because they are examples of people using a divine, inerrant source, and producing demonstrably false and often silly assertions and predictions based on it. <BR/><BR/>We can account for the eccentricities of those on the fringe of any movement or school of thought, but to some degree, abuse of the Bible does reflect badly on the overall credibility of the Bible and its followers. That may not be fair, but that's how it is. I get laughed at as a fellow traveler in a faith that exalts YEC understandings in many prominent quarters, for example. Regrettable, but there it is...<BR/><BR/>For the atheist, though, there's no binding *source* to be discredited. Manifestly, there's no *anything* to be credited or discredited on the level theists are used to thinking about this. For the atheist, it's each man/woman for him/herself. <BR/><BR/>So, failed visions of atheistic utopia from Ayn Rand don't map at all to failed visions of Christ's return from Ellen G. White. Ayn might be fantastically wrong about the actual path of progress (or regress) that man will follow, but her error doesn't reflect on a "Bible"; it just reflects on her. <BR/><BR/>For Christians, it's different. When someone gets up on the Christian soapbox and says things like "The earth is only 6,000 years old", or "Jesus will return when the European Union gets it 'tenth horn'", the reasonable folk in the faith rightly cringe and shake their heads. For these people are not claiming to standing solely on their own. They claim to speak from a dais of ABSOLUTE TRUTH.<BR/><BR/>So, no doubt you can find silly predictions and visions of future in Atheismville, many that compare in spectacle and sheer folly with even the most whacked (pseudo-)Christian apocalyptic envisionings. But the "collateral damage" for the atheist in this practice is nil, beyond the proponent of the vision himself.<BR/><BR/>For the Christian, the situation is fundamentally different. Wacky behavior discredits the Gospel, and undermines the credibility of God's message to the world. An atheist entertaining naive uptopian dreams does not in any way establish a good case for God by her folly; But Christians proceeding like fools (truly stupid fools, not the "foolishness of the Gospel", per St. Paul) do damage to the very faith itself, and to some degree diminish the truth and clarity of its message. Hal Lindsey, in other words, has far more to harm than simply his own reputation. Ayn Rand doesn't. YECs dishonor the Creator with their machinations of speed of light decay and "mature creation", etc. But the secular flat-earther? Who does he discredit? None but himself, so far as I can see.<BR/><BR/>Christians are playing on a different playing field, and we have something to protect, and defend. Crazy, foolish behavior and attitudes are not at all symmetrical with atheist shenanigans. Atheist don't have a God or a Bible or a creed or a faith to discredit and shame. They have only themselves. <BR/><BR/>So, if we aren't playing on a higher level -- if we are "just like" the atheist in the aspects you suggest here, we're in bad shape, indeed.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168629941935775722007-01-12T14:25:00.000-05:002007-01-12T14:25:00.000-05:00Daniel,You speak often about the "progress of mank...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>You speak often about the "progress of mankind". I am assuming of course that you imply progression towards a somewhat absolute 'scientific' and 'moral' framework shared by all mankind resulting in a utopic existence? And what would that look like? (Or at least a favorable transient step?). <BR/><BR/>Realistically for you ( personally), meaning of life can only be derived from your interpretation of the progression itself and the part you play/played. (Regardless of how many scientific 'facts' you have within your grasp.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>I wonder if this is less illusionary than a Christian's quest for heaven? <BR/><BR/>And I am sure you would say would say that a Christian's meaning is derived from a set of myths that they believe. <BR/><BR/>I wonder sometimes if deep down we are all just searching for heaven. And if we are, why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168615236081176692007-01-12T10:20:00.000-05:002007-01-12T10:20:00.000-05:00Dear Finaly Consoled,My post was not about atheism...Dear Finaly Consoled,<BR/><BR/>My post was not about atheism being so depressing.<BR/><BR/>You might consider reading the posts before commenting, afterall, wouldn't want to let Reason down.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168610425965055452007-01-12T09:00:00.000-05:002007-01-12T09:00:00.000-05:00Anyone who claims to have prescience regarding the...Anyone who claims to have prescience regarding the future state of man, or the overall effect of religion upon man, would have a heavy burden of evidence to bear.<BR/><BR/>I have long wrestled with the idea that religion is entirely bad for mankind. I am not sure that this proposition is true. <BR/><BR/>I am sure that fundamentalist dogmatism, and especially that which conflicts with scientific knowledge, is dangerous for the progress of mankind. However, part of that very progress is the <B>peaceful</B> spreading of knowledge through education, and <B>not</B> forcing "conversions" or "deconversions" upon people, or ever erecting a state which enforces any sort of religion or irreligion. Freedom of religion is part of our progress. States like the USSR, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cambodia, etc., etc., show us the danger of [tyrannical] fascism that attempts to strip from [by force] people the freedom to express and practice religion.<BR/><BR/>I've <A HREF="http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2006/11/more-things-change.html" REL="nofollow">commented</A> more on this at length. I have begun to consider that some sorts of religion, and some of its rituals and beliefs, may serve as a sort of "placeholder" for many people who do not have the interest or rigor to critically and seriously examine (exhaustively) philosophical arguments. At some point, the placeholder may be rightfully usurped by the person's own acquisition of beliefs -- rather than inheriting and swallowing wholesale the prepackaged orthodoxy. However, people must have beliefs about morality, and value. If they cannot be bothered to consider, as one alternative, the existential arguments concerning man's freedom to transcend and determine value, or the arguments of virtue theories of ethics, or of utilitarianism...then what will they consider? Is it possible for humans to exist in a sort of vacuum of beliefs? No.<BR/><BR/>From whence cometh their beliefs? Parents. Schools. Experience.<BR/><BR/>Some religions would provide a better set of beliefs than <I>some</I> of these 3 sources. For instance, I think that Buddhism would confer and prescribe a better way to live than a child reared in North Korea and educated (indoctrinated) by its schools and their "Great Leader". Ditto with some religious fundamentalism.<BR/><BR/>Religions have, by time and necessity, evolved. They have dropped off the more primitive aspects (ie blood sacrifices) and adopted humanistic aspects (ie altruism and charity). Therefore, much good comes in the package. Much that intersects with rational thinking can be found in the box that is orthodox religion.<BR/><BR/>And therefore, I have a hard time feeling the same sort of impetus to deconvert the masses that, say, Sam Harris or Dawkins do. I find myself too skeptical to paint with so wide a brush. However, I do wish that those persons who hold specific religious beliefs that I consider detrimental to progress [and to the person's own mental health] would give an ear and some credence to the arguments against those beliefs. I am frightened by <A HREF="http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-chain-pulling-for-anti.html" REL="nofollow">anti-intellectualism</A>, which runs rampant in some religious circles. And that is what compels me to argue against those topics that I do.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168606998810696642007-01-12T08:03:00.000-05:002007-01-12T08:03:00.000-05:00You're right! Atheism is so depressing, I might as...You're right! Atheism is so depressing, I might as well invent a god and start worshipping it! The alternative is just too much to bear. Thanks, Paul!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168601483609246112007-01-12T06:31:00.000-05:002007-01-12T06:31:00.000-05:00:::SNIZZZ!!!::::::SNIZZZ!!!:::Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168575248071592432007-01-11T23:14:00.000-05:002007-01-11T23:14:00.000-05:00mathetes,thanks for lettig me know, I hardly ever ...mathetes,<BR/><BR/>thanks for lettig me know, I hardly ever stop by there.<BR/><BR/>I took your email and will email you...Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1168574925946115732007-01-11T23:08:00.000-05:002007-01-11T23:08:00.000-05:00Paul, can you check your private messages at the i...Paul, can you check your private messages at the internet infidels forum? Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com