Pages

Sunday, July 16, 2006

Reflections On My Debate With Dan Barker, And The Myriad Comments Regarding It

I must say that it's been a fascinating week reading the various comments from both sides (atheist and Christian) on my debate with Dan Barker. For those who have not heard it, the debate can be downloaded from this site (3rd one down under "free downloads"). Unsurprisingly, most atheists think Barker prevailed and most Christians think I prevailed. I obviously think I faithfully defended the faith. In this entry I'll make some comments on [1] how I think the debate went and [2] the various reviews given by atheists and [3] the main points they think Barker won. We'll go in that order.

[1] Basically, I think it's simple. As far as the debate goes, and objective scoring goes, I don't feel Barker won. Here's my basic run down of how the debate went.

I opened with a sustained argument, arguing that [1] with respect to beliefs atheism was non-rational since, according to Barker, atheism is not a belief. And, [2] with respect to the other area where rationality is attributed (agent, or cognizer, rationality), Barker was agent irrational. I pointed out three internal inconsistencies in Barker's worldview and gave a brief description of how my worldview allows for basic paradigms of rationality; whereas Barker's undermines them. I also quoted Barker saying that if my worldview's presuppositions are accepted then Christianity is internally consistent.

Barker opened with an argument that atheism is rational since there is no evidence for God's existence, the Bible mentions irrational things, and he does not need to account for logic or morality because they are not "things." Barker also tried to show that the concept of God was incoherent with his FANG argument.

Then we had cross examination. During mine Barker admitted that he had a functionalist understanding of the mind, he was a conceptualist, logic did not exist, and that cosmically humans were no different than broccoli but that we subjectively assign value, which may be a wrong assignment, to humans. Barker also admitted that given our worldview God is not evil for punishing sinners.

During Barker's he tried to show that I was inconsistent for believing that a snake talked to Adam and Eve in the garden if I didn't accept his claim that a cat spoke Spanish to him. He also tried to throw me into disrepute by claiming that John Calvin had Servetus burned, and since Calvin was a Christian this means that Christianity was somehow to blame (yeah, I didn‘t think it followed either).

During my rebuttal period I gave an argument against Barker's FANG. I refuted his conceptualism as well as his functionalism. I also refuted his pragmatic justification for induction, pointing out that [a] it was not an epistemic justification and [b] even Barker's book points out that just because something works does not make it rational. I then gave a positive argument for how Christianity accounts for the three paradigms of rationality I mentioned in my opening. I pointed out that given Barker's worldview there was no survival value in thinking in terms of modalities, but given our worldview this fit perfectly. I argued that given the doctrines of providence and God's covenant keeping nature, we had a basis for inductive reasoning. I also pointed out that there are moral obligations and only persons obligate. I then pointed out that if there are universal moral obligations this is because there is a universal person. I also quickly pointed out that Barker's evidentialism had an infinite regress attached to it and if he tried to halt it by foundationalism he needed to deal with the likes of Plantinga (i.e., one's belief in foundationalism is not basic (in the classical sense) and is not inferred (by induction or deduction) from his basic beliefs (whatever those are!, Barker failed to specify) and is therefore self-referentially incoherent).

Barker's rebuttal failed to address any of my arguments. He did not mention any of the refutations of his FANG, conceptualism, functionalism, morality, and pragmatism as an epistemic defense of induction. that I leveled at him. He pointed out that, according to his subjective preference, God was a meany. He again claimed that logic was not a "thing." And, lastly, he said that if logic was dependant on God's nature that meant God could have made different laws of logic. And, he again admitted that man is no different than broccoli, in the cosmic sense.

In my closing I pointed out that I was not reifying logic. I pointed out that Barker was begging the question against metaphysical realism. I also quoted an actual example of the fallacy of reification found in Barker's book. I pointed out that he had no basis for making his moral claims, except for a subjective preference, which does not admit one to objectively condemn Hitler or God! I pointed out that God could not have made the laws of logic different (at least not in my worldview) but, given Barker's view (i.e., logic is a function of the physical brain), we could have evolved differently with different laws of logic. I then called Barker to repentance, pointing out that his philosophically shoddy worldview was a result of sin.

In Barker's closing he again failed to interact with any of my rebuttals. He just asserted, again, that logic was not a "thing." Barker then ranted about how God was a big meany and he would tell Jesus and His Father to go to hell because they were mean for creating it (I guess Barker doesn't like it when someone, cosmically, fries broccoli, because one only should boil it!). Barker ranted some more about Calvin and even claimed Calvin used the King James Version of the Holy Bible! (Not only is he ignorant of basic philosophical issues, he is ignorant of history as well.)

And that's my assessment of the debate.


[2] With respects to the various atheists take on our debate I've not seen any one analyze the debate. Most of the comments seem to refer to me as an idiot and just assert that Barker owned me. The few comments they do make, which have substance to them, will be dealt with below. Many claim that I sounded angry. I've not had one Christian tell me that I did sound that way, though. My wife, friends, and various pastors have said I sounded fine. Also, some atheists have claimed that I was unprofessional in that I went over my time limit. Actually, I never did once, but Barker did on every one of his segments (save his opening)! The only time the moderator had to tell me to stop talking was during the Q and A session. The problem here is that there was never a specified time limit and he had told me via email to keep talking until he felt I talked long enough.


[3] Basically, the main areas of contention in my performance was my supposed reification fallacy, and my belief in a talking snake. I'll deal with these in turn.

Reification: I dealt with that here: Fallacy of Reification.

Talking Snakes and Induction: To even comment on this shows me the level of philosophical sophistication the internet atheists (and Barker) are playing at. Basically the argument goes like this:

You're irrational for believing that a snake talked to Adam and Eve. Induction tells us this can't happen. If you only believe in talking snakes because a book told you so then what about if I say a cat talked to me? If you reject that a cat talked to me, you should also reject that a snake talked to Adam and Eve.

That's the basic gist of the argument. Some brief comments should serve to put it to bed.


1. I believe the biblical account. If true, this refutes the inductive generalization. Therefore, one must undermine the biblical account *before* one claims it can't be correct.

2. To just dismiss the biblical account is called begging the question.

3. Induction does not tell us what is impossible.

4. To put Barker's say-so and the Bible's (as God's word) say-so on the *same level* begs the question. It does not follow that because I don't believe Barker I must also not believe the Bible, especially given my other beliefs.

5. How am I irrational for believing this story in the Bible? Given my worldview I believe that this is God's word and He does not lie. Taking something on the authority of someone who never lies is not irrational. Thus the argument assumes that God is not the ultimate authority and the Bible is not His word, which begs the question against my worldview.

6. Even if I did accept a talking cat, how's that a problem for my worldview? I see how it fails to prove me irrational. Even an evolutionist should have no problem admitting that through mutations we can get talking cats.

7. Parrots talk.

8. In "The Art of Reasoning," atheist David Kelly makes claims about what constitutes a good inductive argument (457-460):

[a] To form an inductive generalization the sample should be sufficiently numerous and various.

[b] We should look for disconfirming as well as confirming instances of a generalization.

[c] We should consider whether a link between S and P is plausible in light of other knowledge we posses.

So the problems here with Barker's argument are numerous.

i. This is an account of what happened pre-fall. All his samples are post-fall samples.

ii. Satan used the snake, Barker has only sampled "non-possessed" snakes.

iii. As T-blogger Jason Engwer has pointed out, many commentaries argue that what was called a serpent before the fall became the creature that we call a "snake" today. Hence the objection assumes that what we call a "snake" today was the creature before the fall.

iv. The Bible, as disconfirming evidence, was dismissed *out of hand* as wrong simply because *it was* disconfirming evidence!

v. Given points 1-4, this affects [c]. Given knowledge about the world if theism is true, a talking snake is no problem. Only if this is dismissed, a priori, do we have a problem.

vi. Thus as I claimed in the debate Barker simply begged the question.

So in closing I fail to see how Barker proved my worldview was irrational at all. Granted he came in *assuming* that is was irrational, given the falsity of theism, but that's uninteresting. Given theism, atheism is irrational. Basically all that happened is that Barker claimed he disagreed with my worldview. But, we already knew that! So why did he bother to show up? Other than that, not answering *any* of my arguments and rebuttals does not constitute winning a debate in any book I know of. Claiming that Christianity is morally bankrupt, while simultaneously admitting that your moral foundation is your subjective opinion, does not constitute winning a debate. Assuming nominalism, does not constitute winning a debate. So, regardless of whether you agree with my position or not, I think any sensible person will agree that Christian theism came out on top Monday night. If you disagree with me, know that on Barker’s worldview, cosmically, we’re just two vegetables who’ve happened to grow differently, and that’s it. But, hey, the debate is public and available for all to hear and form your own opinions.

16 comments:

  1. I was anticipating a better performance from Barker. Instead, he ended up saying some of the most stupidest things, like how humans are no better than broccoli, or that the laws of logic don't exist. Yeah sure, Barker is a well spoken individual but he wasn't in the least sophisticated. At least, he wasn't sophisticated in the night of the debate. You know, I genuinely like Dan Barker but I was really disappointed with his performance because I expected more from him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, Barker put up much more of a fight in the Doug Wilson debate than w/ you, Paul. And he was owned in the Wilson debate. It makes me wonder why he's this big atheist champion, but then again, how could anyone else do a lot better given what they have to work with?

    ReplyDelete
  3. John:

    Your objection seems so rational that I wonder -- what else can that argument prove?

    For example, I am 100% confident that you have never experienced a rogue wave. What exactly do you make of the claim that wikipedia states here, given the limits of your personal experience?

    ReplyDelete
  4. BTW, I'd be willing to chalk Dan's cat up to supernatural experience -- because I'd be willing to bet that Dan's cat wasn't telling him to repent and be baptized because Jesus is Lord and Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For a peak inside the mind, and “logical reasoning”, of a biblical literalist idolatry, cult member, and his pompous belief in his own superior philosophical sophistry, let’s look at Paul’s “reasoning” as to why snakes can sometimes “talk”.


    Talking Snakes and Induction: To even comment on this shows me the level of philosophical sophistication the internet atheists (and Barker) are playing at.

    And believing in talking snakes, donkeys, burning bushes, or clouds, shows the level of your irrational need to worship the veracity of some Hebrew folklore and mythology.


    You're irrational for believing that a snake talked to Adam and Eve. Induction tells us this can't happen. If you only believe in talking snakes because a book told you so then what about if I say a cat talked to me? If you reject that a cat talked to me, you should also reject that a snake talked to Adam and Eve.

    That's the basic gist of the argument. Some brief comments should serve to put it to bed.


    1. I believe the biblical account. If true, this refutes the inductive generalization. Therefore, one must undermine the biblical account *before* one claims it can't be correct.


    You “believe the biblical account”. Or better yet, you "believe your personal Reformed Protestant interpretation of a vast collection of ancient writing".

    That pretty much sums up all your “rationality” about everything, doesn’t it Paul?

    You "believe" your interpretation of this thing you call the bible, and no amount of rational reasoning or evidence or logical inference that contradicts YOUR interpretation of this collection of writing, is going to change your mind.

    You mistakenly believe that by worshipping a somewhat arbitrary collection of ancient writing by countless authors and editors, most of whom are anonymous, you are worshipping something called “god”. It speaks volumes about why the human mind does not have to be “rational”, but can survive, flourish, and seemingly “win” meaningless “debates” while clinging to the most irrational superstition and idolatry.

    You believe this huge collection of ancient, anonymous Hebrew folklore, mythology and sacred fictional history is all absolutely, historically, factually correct, and that "snakes can sometimes talk", because why Paul?

    Because you have any overwhelming evidence, or rational reason to?

    Or because you think this "belief" will somehow be rewarded, with you getting your personal ego extended for all eternity?

    It seems quite obvious to us “rational” folks, that you’re a member of a literary idolatry, eternal life cult, Paul. That you've been indoctrinated with the idea that you must defend the veracity of this collection of ancient writing against any and all reason or evidence to the contrary, in order to gain you're coveted prize of "eternal life".

    This is a perfectly rational inference that explains your need to cling to ancient, anonymous folklore about "talking snakes" as "true".

    Many “reasonable”, “liberal”, modern Christian scholars, have come to accept the fact that the Genesis “garden of Eden” story is a mythical allegory of our ancient ancestors, and that it has been completely contradicted by the rational logic and inference of our modern scientific investigation and empirical evidence for the slow evolution of species over the 3+ billion year history of life on this planet.

    But since the world and inference doesn’t have to be consistent and “rational” to Paul, he can claim that ANYTHING can happen, and any perfectly logical, scientific inference that contradicts his idolized myths are "wrong". Because what some ancient anonymous Hebrew storyteller wrote down 3000 years ago, MUST be true!

    Imagine! What an amazing display of rational, logical thinking!

    To just dismiss the biblical account is called begging the question.


    To just claim that one collection of ancient mythology, folklore and allegory must be completely TRUE, while dismissing all other collections of similar sacred mythology and folklore of other ancient cultures is FALSE, is called “special pleading” Paul.

    Look it up.

    To dismiss an ancient allegory that has a reference to a talking snake as purely FICTIONAL, is not begging the question, its an excellent example of rational thinking and inference as to what is the BEST EXPLANATION that explains the claim:

    "some ancient, anonymous Hebrew preist said a snake could talk".


    3. Induction does not tell us what is impossible.

    No, it tells us what is most likely given our observations and current understanding. Thus, given our lack of any convincing historical or observational evidence that snakes can “talk”, and given the overwhelming evidence that ancient cultures made up lots of fictional folklore and mythology, that vast majority of which Paul denies is true...

    ...we RATIONALLY assign ancient stories of “talking snakes” to the category of fictional, mythical stories.



    4. To put Barker's say-so and the Bible's (as God's word) say-so on the *same level* begs the question.

    To claim some ancient anonymous Hebrew storyteller’s myth about the “garden of Eden” are “god’s word” again demonstrates your simple minded, irrational, special pleading.





    5. How am I irrational for believing this story in the Bible? Given my worldview I believe that this is God's word and He does not lie.

    Your “worldview” isn’t convincing evidence for anything Paul.

    Perhaps you don’t realize that the collection of ancient musings you call the bible was written by countless MEN, Paul. Not by any “gods”, not even by “Jesus of Nazareth”. That’s why we call them the “gospel of Mark” (whoever that is) or the “epistles of Paul”, and not the “gospel of god, and the epistles of god”.

    Sorry Paul, anytime you want to offer evidence why all these ancient anonymous men who told, wrote, forged, and redacted this collection of writing are all “gods”, please do.

    In the meantime, your “worldview” is nothing more than special pleading literary idolatry.



    7. Parrots talk.


    SMIRK!

    Oh my…yes Paul, parrots certainly can “talk”. Perhaps if I could train one to tell you that “there is but one god Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”, you would change your beliefs and start worshipping the Koran.

    Thanks for amusing me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. George,

    There is no way that I could even begin to address you at the philosophical level of Paul or Steve. I do have a few questions for you though.

    1. According to your worldview, so what?

    2. What does it matter what anyone believes? Don't you believe that through natural selection the fittest will survive regardless of what they believe, feel or think?

    3. Don't you argue that mental processes - thoughts and beliefs - regardless of what they are, are simply the result of evolutionary bio-sociological processes anyway? So why not religious beliefs? If that is true why are you so beligerant against them?

    4. Even if Paul believes that he is right and you are wrong so what? Wouldn't successive evolution simply ensure that sometime in the future this will all be awash anyway?

    5. Are you as adamantly against advertising as you are against Christianity? The basic premise of advertising is you will only be a somebody if you buy this or that product. I assume you ignore the majority of those messages every day. So what if Christianity says that if you don't submit your life to God, you will go to hell. You can choose to just ignore it, can't you? Why does it get under your skin?

    5. If theocratic rule or secular atheistic rule dominates all life and oppresses a group of people so what? Wouldn't that simply be the fittest surviving? A process of natural selection?

    6. What direct harm have you had to endure from religious people and if any, why don't you assume that it is just natural selection at work and accept your fate?

    7. Though I am not discounting that your life has meaning, in your grand scheme of things the individual is meaningless is it not? Yet I hear you honoring your physique and intelligence. Is this you railing against the 'fact' that you are simply a transmitter of genetic information? Is it hard for you to accept that you are absolutely expendable regardless of the reason? If it is, why?

    8. If Paul or Steve or anyone could provide you with irrefuteable evidence for God's existence would you then 'bow the knee'? Do you believe there is irrefuteable evidence for everything you believe?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh boy! Let's play 20 questions with Warren!

    There is no way that I could even begin to address you at the philosophical level of Paul or Steve. I do have a few questions for you though.

    Smirk! I’m glad you’re a fan. The fact that you cult members all go around calling each other “great philosophers” really impresses me.


    1. According to your worldview, so what?

    So what…”what”? Try and be specific, oh great philosopher.



    2. What does it matter what anyone believes?

    Well Garsh Warren, if people don’t believe they should stop for red lights, people get into car crashes.

    Studies show, that people don’t like to get into car crashes, so it’s important they “believe” they should stop their cars when the light turns red.

    Any other brilliant questions, oh noble philosopher?


    Don't you believe that through natural selection the fittest will survive regardless of what they believe, feel or think?

    Yes.

    Don't you argue that mental processes - thoughts and beliefs - regardless of what they are, are simply the result of evolutionary bio-sociological processes anyway?

    I have no idea what you mean by this blather.

    Yes, your physical brain is the result of biological evolution, what you think and believe is influenced by your environment including a vast array of social interactions.

    Do you deny this? Or are all your thoughts controlled by your fairy godmother, and your brain was created out of mud by a tribal deity?


    So why not religious beliefs?

    Why not? They’re a dime a dozen…what’s your point? That yours must be “true”?


    If that is true why are you so beligerant against them?

    I guess I must like to be “belligerent”. I like spelling it correctly as well.
    It must be one of those “bio-sociological” things I picked up. Maybe it makes me more “fit”, and will help me and my genes “survive”, because chicks want to have sex with me more than you?

    You being such an expert on evolutionary theory, I would suspect you would know the answer.

    Let me ask you a question, Warren.
    Are the Christian bloggers and their fans of this site ever “belligerent”?

    Is that in keeping with their perfect, objective morality?


    Even if Paul believes that he is right and you are wrong so what?

    Yes. So what? So why all the meaningless questions Warren?


    Wouldn't successive evolution simply ensure that sometime in the future this will all be awash anyway?

    I’m not sure what you are asking. Do I believe that Paul and I will someday be dead, and in another billion years, it won’t matter what we thought, to any sentient being alive at that time? Yes, I believe that. I guess you could call me “humble” in that respect, compared to Paul and you.


    5. Are you as adamantly against advertising as you are against Christianity?

    I’m sorry if you think that you, and the gang of Calvinista “philosophers” who post here, have the exclusive trademark or copyright on what ‘Christianity’ is. Sorry. I say Bishop Spong does.

    I am posting my objections to the thoughts of Paul. I realize he may have delusions of grandeur as the sole spokesmodel for god or Jesus of Nazareth, but I assure you, I don’t give him such authority.

    Maybe you do as his number one fan?


    The basic premise of advertising is you will only be a somebody if you buy this or that product.

    And here we have the “basic premise” of the ignorant, sweeping generalization.

    Sorry…is there a point?


    I assume you ignore the majority of those messages every day. So what if Christianity says that if you don't submit your life to God, you will go to hell. You can choose to just ignore it, can't you? Why does it get under your skin?

    Who says anything is under my skin? Do you have the ability to ignore my replies? Is there a problem? Why am I getting under your skin Warren?

    BTW….most advertisers don’t have a history of claiming people who don’t by their clients products or services will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire. But I can see how that message would be powerful to the gullible.
    Anyway, thanks for another wretched theist analogy in lieu of clear articulate argument.

    If theocratic rule or secular atheistic rule dominates all life and oppresses a group of people so what?
    I’m not familiar with this fantasy…If some theocrat is threatening to burn me at the stake, I usually take an interest. How about you?


    Wouldn't that simply be the fittest surviving? A process of natural selection?

    Again, I’m not sure what your cliché understanding of evolution is. I assure you believing, or not believing, or not knowing about the “triune nature” of some god is not a genetic trait. Perhaps you don’t understand what biological evolution is?


    6. What direct harm have you had to endure from religious people and if any, why don't you assume that it is just natural selection at work and accept your fate?

    I don’t have a “fate”…sorry.

    If religious or any other people try and harm me for not believing like they do, I will typically try to defend myself or flee, just like I’ll do from a political tyrant or a rabid dog.

    Does that bother you? What do you typically do when someone is threatening you? Do you pray? Does that usually work?


    7. Though I am not discounting that your life has meaning, in your grand scheme of things the individual is meaningless is it not?

    I don’t have any “grand schemes”…sorry to disappoint you.


    Yet I hear you honoring your physique and intelligence.

    LOL. I informed little Stevie of my size and physical qualifications, and that I was more than willing to accept his challenge in any “contact sport”, after he insinuated that he was a big and strong Christian, and I was weak and effeminate. Why do you think a good, loving, humble Christian, imbued with the Holy Spirit of the prince of peace, would do such a thing?

    Will you be playing 20 questions with him as well?


    8. If Paul or Steve or anyone could provide you with irrefuteable evidence for God's existence would you then 'bow the knee'?

    I find it curious that the allegedly omnipotent god of Protestant Calvinistas needs people like Paul and Steve to come up with philosophical sophistry to “prove” his existence. It seems quite hilarious and ironic.

    I wonder…why does your god need people to “bend their knees”?

    Is he in favor of more exercise?

    ReplyDelete
  8. John:

    You have changed the subject.

    Would I be wiling to admit that I have never personally experienced a talking snake? Sure I would.

    You have never personally experienced a rogue wave. However, we both hold beliefs about both of these subjects in spite of our rather-bland personal experiences.

    The difference between you and me is that I believe both of the phenomena in question for very different reasons rather than find myself plugged into only one small epistemological tin can which excludes all kinds of useful information.

    You can answer the question about rogue waves when you are ready to be serious. You can also walk away from answering -- and admit you cannot be serious about this subject.

    ReplyDelete
  9. George

    Smirk! I’m glad you’re a fan. The fact that you cult members all go around calling each other “great philosophers” really impresses me.

    Smirk. I never called them great. Simply that I was not at their level.

    So what…”what”? Try and be specific, oh great philosopher.

    Clarified in question 2.

    Well Garsh Warren, if people don’t believe they should stop for red lights, people get into car crashes. Studies show, that people don’t like to get into car crashes, so it’s important they “believe” they should stop their cars when the light turns red.
    Any other brilliant questions, oh noble philosopher?


    Yes, ever thought of expanding your answers to more than the traffic light example. Or do you typically skirt the underlying question with frivolous anecdotes. So what if someone believes in fairies, godmothers, UFOs or non-existent gods? If they do and don’t impose those beliefs on you, no harm done. And even if they impose those beliefs on you and burn you at the stake for dissenting, it’s all simply part of the evolutionary process isn’t it? Sure you as an individual are affected, but in no way is the species threatened.

    I have no idea what you mean by this blather.

    Based on your following statement I guess you did have an idea what I meant by my blather.

    Yes, your physical brain is the result of biological evolution, what you think and believe is influenced by your environment including a vast array of social interactions. Do you deny this? Or are all your thoughts controlled by your fairy godmother, and your brain was created out of mud by a tribal deity?

    I was brought up in a Christian home but attended a liberal university and studied Chemistry and Physics under atheistic professors. The majority of my friends were anything but Christian. All this comprised my social interactions. Can you explain biologically and sociologically why I am still a Christian?

    Why not? They’re a dime a dozen…what’s your point? That yours must be “true”?

    Even though I believe that mine is true that wasn’t my point. My religious thoughts and beliefs then appear to be the result of evolutionary biological and social processes. I mean at least they would have to in your worldview. If not where do they come from? Why so adamantly opposed to them? Is it simply because we believe them to be true? Again so what?


    I guess I must like to be “belligerent”. I like spelling it correctly as well. It must be one of those “bio-sociological” things I picked up. Maybe it makes me more “fit”, and will help me and my genes “survive”, because chicks want to have sex with me more than you?

    That’s funny. Research shows either a steady birthrate or an increase in the birth rates of religious societies, but a decrease in the birth rates of secular atheistic societies. Just because chicks want to have sex with you more than me doesn’t guarantee your genes will survive.

    Let me ask you a question, Warren. Are the Christian bloggers and their fans of this site ever “belligerent”? Is that in keeping with their perfect, objective morality?

    Yes they are, but I was wondering what your reason was for being so belligerent (happy?). After all religious thoughts and beliefs are simply a part of our overall evolution. Aren’t they?

    Yes. So what? So why all the meaningless questions Warren?

    I can understand Paul’s and Steve’s ‘crusade’ but I don’t understand yours.

    I’m not sure what you are asking. Do I believe that Paul and I will someday be dead, and in another billion years, it won’t matter what we thought, to any sentient being alive at that time? Yes, I believe that. I guess you could call me “humble” in that respect, compared to Paul and you.

    Why are you so reactionary then?

    I’m sorry if you think that you, and the gang of Calvinista “philosophers” who post here, have the exclusive trademark or copyright on what ‘Christianity’ is. Sorry. I say Bishop Spong does.

    Why is it so difficult to answer the question posed? If it makes it easier then assume I meant my brand of Christianity.

    I am posting my objections to the thoughts of Paul. I realize he may have delusions of grandeur as the sole spokesmodel for god or Jesus of Nazareth, but I assure you, I don’t give him such authority. Maybe you do as his number one fan?

    I doubt he gives himself that authority and even if he does, so what?

    And here we have the “basic premise” of the ignorant, sweeping generalization.

    Yeah, much like the traffic light scenario.

    Who says anything is under my skin? Do you have the ability to ignore my replies? Is there a problem? Why am I getting under your skin Warren?

    Firstly I wasn’t replying to you but posing a set of questions. No you are not getting under my skin, but your rhetoric does convey a certain amount of irritation.

    BTW….most advertisers don’t have a history of claiming people who don’t by their clients products or services will spend eternity burning in a lake of fire. But I can see how that message would be powerful to the gullible. Anyway, thanks for another wretched theist analogy in lieu of clear articulate argument.

    But if hell is a myth, who cares? I have been called a homophobic, misogynistic unintelligent superstitious ignoramus. I simply ignore those labels like I ignore most advertising. And perhaps people are gullible because of their overall evolutionary biological and social make-up. Can you then blame them?

    I’m not familiar with this fantasy…If some theocrat is threatening to burn me at the stake, I usually take an interest. How about you?

    Sure I do, but it is perfectly reasonable within evolution to assume that my individual interest really has no bearing.

    Again, I’m not sure what your cliché understanding of evolution is. I assure you believing, or not believing, or not knowing about the “triune nature” of some god is not a genetic trait. Perhaps you don’t understand what biological evolution is?

    My understanding is limited but I have so far alluded to both biological and sociological processes. Are you telling me not believing in a god is a genetic trait? Can you prove it either way?

    I don’t have a “fate”…sorry.
    If religious or any other people try and harm me for not believing like they do, I will typically try to defend myself or flee, just like I’ll do from a political tyrant or a rabid dog.
    Does that bother you? What do you typically do when someone is threatening you? Do you pray? Does that usually work?


    So you have never suffered direct harm from religious people, in particular this ‘brand’ of Christianity?

    No it doesn’t bother me. I will defend myself as well (and pray). But you are the one who believes in natural selection and the survival of the fittest. So whoever the victor, they were naturally selected and the fittest? Even if it wasn’t you but perhaps some crazy Theocrat?

    I don’t have any “grand schemes”…sorry to disappoint you.

    If I rephrase the question will you answer it?

    LOL. I informed little Stevie of my size and physical qualifications, and that I was more than willing to accept his challenge in any “contact sport”, after he insinuated that he was a big and strong Christian, and I was weak and effeminate. Why do you think a good, loving, humble Christian, imbued with the Holy Spirit of the prince of peace, would do such a thing?”

    I must have missed that. Would you be so kind as to quote exactly what Steve said? Yet you have continued to allude to your supposed superior intelligence.

    I find it curious that the allegedly omnipotent god of Protestant Calvinistas needs people like Paul and Steve to come up with philosophical sophistry to “prove” his existence. It seems quite hilarious and ironic.

    As hilarious and ironic as atheistic philosophical sophistry to prove that God doesn’t exist?

    I wonder…why does your god need people to “bend their knees”? Is he in favor of more exercise?

    LOL. Yeah Christianese does include some funny expressions. So on what evidence would you believe then? What are your evidential requirements?

    I am assuming by your silence that you don’t have irrefutable evidence for everything you believe. Are you perhaps gullible too?

    ReplyDelete

  10. Smirk. I never called them great. Simply that I was not at their level.

    Oh really? What “level” are they at? What “level” are you at? And where pray tell is your absolute, objective level standard?


    Yes, ever thought of expanding your answers to more than the traffic light example. Or do you typically skirt the underlying question with frivolous anecdotes.

    You asked me a stupid question Warren; “why is it important what people believe”.

    I gave you a good example why it's important. I could give others. Do you doubt there are more?

    So what if someone believes in fairies, godmothers, UFOs or non-existent gods?

    Yes, and so what if I don’t, and I like to point out that fairies don't exist? Is that a problem Warren?


    If they do and don’t impose those beliefs on you, no harm done.
    And even if they impose those beliefs on you and burn you at the stake for dissenting, it’s all simply part of the evolutionary process isn’t it?

    No Warren. I see you’re still confused about what evolution is if you are referring to the biological version.


    Sure you as an individual are affected, but in no way is the species threatened.

    Oh I see your brilliant argument…since I accept the FACTS of biological evolution, I must accept that certain evolved humans want to burn me at the stake for not believing in this or that theological detail of their deluded minds?

    It’s quite brilliant Warren, I think you’re ready to move to level two in the Calvinista Philosopher rankings.


    I was brought up in a Christian home but attended a liberal university and studied Chemistry and Physics under atheistic professors. The majority of my friends were anything but Christian. All this comprised my social interactions. Can you explain biologically and sociologically why I am still a Christian?

    Being a Christian is not a “biologically” determined thing Warren. I have no idea why you are a Christian, or why you are asking me to tell you why you are one. Nor do I care who your friends were in college.

    I would hope you could figure it out for yourself why you label yourself a “Christian”. If not, please see a professional psychologist and maybe he can help you figure it out.


    Even though I believe that mine is true that wasn’t my point. My religious thoughts and beliefs then appear to be the result of evolutionary biological and social processes. I mean at least they would have to in your worldview. If not where do they come from? Why so adamantly opposed to them? Is it simply because we believe them to be true? Again so what?

    So what Warren? So why do you keep responding?

    Did you know this is a website dedicated to advocacy and debate?

    Am I forcing you to read my views Warren? Am I picketing in front of your church on Sunday morning Warren?

    Is there a point to your hypersensitivity Warren?

    You’re back to level one Warren. If you’re going to be an apologist who gets in people’s faces for a hobby, this “why do you care” tripe isn’t going to cut it. It’s weak.


    That’s funny. Research shows either a steady birthrate or an increase in the birth rates of religious societies, but a decrease in the birth rates of secular atheistic societies.

    That’s actually hilarious Warren, whose “research” shows that?

    You see Warren , the FACTS are, Italy, which is 90 percent Christian, has negative population growth and the lowest birth rate in the world.

    https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#People

    Meanwhile, China, which is a country with a largely atheist religious traditions of Taosim and Buddhism, has had one of the highest birthrates for last couple of hundred years.

    Its fun watching you make a fool of yourself Warren. It’s fun watching you pull imaginary “research” out of your rectum to support whatever lame “evolutionary” argument you’re trying to make.
    I can understand Paul’s and Steve’s ‘crusade’ but I don’t understand yours.

    I’m not on a “crusade”, and I don’t have any “grand scheme” Warren. I’m just poking fun at the lame tripe of some pretentious Calvinistas. Would you deny me this simple pleasure Warren?

    Why are you so reactionary then?

    Why are you so full of hilarious hyperbole?


    Why is it so difficult to answer the question posed? If it makes it easier then assume I meant my brand of Christianity.

    I have no idea what your brand is Warren. So far you appear to be the Calvinista public defender who is still a Christian even though he took Chemistry from an atheist! Oh my…is that a miracle? Should I alert the vatican?

    I doubt he gives himself that authority and even if he does, so what?

    So what Warren? So what? So why are you bothering me Warren?


    Yeah, much like the traffic light scenario.

    LOL. Are you saying that it’s a “sweeping generalization” that people believe in stopping at traffic lights Warren?

    Perhaps you could cite some more of your famous “research”?



    Firstly I wasn’t replying to you but posing a set of questions. No you are not getting under my skin, but your rhetoric does convey a certain amount of irritation.

    LOL
    Now you weren’t even replying to me? These questions were just aimed at anyone named George who might be reading?

    But if hell is a myth, who cares?

    Apparently you do.


    I have been called a homophobic, misogynistic unintelligent superstitious ignoramus. I simply ignore those labels like I ignore most advertising.

    LOL…sure you do Warren….sure you do…


    And perhaps people are gullible because of their overall evolutionary biological and social make-up. Can you then blame them?

    Who should I blame when some ignoramus lies about birth rates in different Christian versus “secular” countries?

    Sure I do, but it is perfectly reasonable within evolution to assume that my individual interest really has no bearing.

    SNORT! No bearing on what Warren?

    Yes…nothing matters to individuals once they realize they are members of genetically evolving populations. Is that the incredibly lame argument you are trying to make in this inane game of twenty questions?

    Is there any else REALLY STUPID you want to say now Warren?

    My understanding is limited

    Finally we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh really? What “level” are they at? What “level” are you at? And where pray tell is your absolute, objective level standard?

    I usually have a dictionary on hand when I read their arguments. Never said I had an absolute. Maybe something you assumed I said. Just a simple comparison I made between them and I.

    You asked me a stupid question Warren; “why is it important what people believe”. I gave you a good example why it's important. I could give others. Do you doubt there are more?

    No but do you really believe that it summarizes all beliefs and thoughts? Hardly

    Yes, and so what if I don’t, and I like to point out that fairies don't exist? Is that a problem Warren?

    So it’s your ‘mission’ to free the world of incorrect beliefs then? (I think I’m beginning to understand.) At least the ones you believe are incorrect.

    No Warren. I see you’re still confused about what evolution is if you are referring to the biological version.

    I was referring to sociological and biological.

    Oh I see your brilliant argument…since I accept the FACTS of biological evolution, I must accept that certain evolved humans want to burn me at the stake for not believing in this or that theological detail of their deluded minds?

    It’s quite brilliant Warren, I think you’re ready to move to level two in the Calvinista Philosopher rankings.


    I didn’t say that you must accept it, but hypothetically is it not an inevitable outcome of what you believe. I mean aren’t ‘deluded’ minds also the direct result of biological and sociological evolution along with non-deluded minds . Or are they the result of something else? Perhaps deluded minds will ultimately be favored by natural selection. Who knows?

    Being a Christian is not a “biologically” determined thing Warren. I have no idea why you are a Christian, or why you are asking me to tell you why you are one. Nor do I care who your friends were in college.
    I would hope you could figure it out for yourself why you label yourself a “Christian”. If not, please see a professional psychologist and maybe he can help you figure it out.


    That’s why I also specified ‘sociologically’ as well. But in any case, if I am simply a result of biological and social evolutionary processes then that would explain why I am a Christian or why at least I believe in something that is delusional. Aren’t I the result of my overall evolutionary makeup?

    So what Warren? So why do you keep responding?Did you know this is a website dedicated to advocacy and debate?Am I forcing you to read my views Warren? Am I picketing in front of your church on Sunday morning Warren?Is there a point to your hypersensitivity Warren?You’re back to level one Warren. If you’re going to be an apologist who gets in people’s faces for a hobby, this “why do you care” tripe isn’t going to cut it. It’s weak.

    I enjoy dialogue. I like understanding where people are coming from. I am interested in what motivates people. The “why do you care” is not disingenuous. I am trying to tie in your response (tonal and content) to your worldview. I am not implying that you shouln’t care. That you should not debate. I am just trying to understand why.

    What gave my hypersensitivity away?

    That’s actually hilarious Warren, whose “research” shows that?

    You see Warren , the FACTS are, Italy, which is 90 percent Christian, has negative population growth and the lowest birth rate in the world.

    https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#People

    Meanwhile, China, which is a country with a largely atheist religious traditions of Taosim and Buddhism, has had one of the highest birthrates for last couple of hundred years.

    Its fun watching you make a fool of yourself Warren. It’s fun watching you pull imaginary “research” out of your rectum to support whatever lame “evolutionary” argument you’re trying to make.


    So you chose two countries to ‘defeat’ my argument. Fascinating. Please note I said religious, not Christian. In any case the following web sites, "http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004395.html, http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/birth_rates/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.PNG, and http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-birth-rate would indicate that predominantly religious countries (North Africa and the Middle East) are generally way above the more secular ones (European), with exceptions of course.

    Also from your response do I assume that you have no problem with Taoism and Buddhism? So you are confirming that those are equally valid worldviews to your own?

    I’m not on a “crusade”, and I don’t have any “grand scheme” Warren. I’m just poking fun at the lame tripe of some pretentious Calvinistas. Would you deny me this simple pleasure Warren?

    No I wouldn’t. Poke away. Just interested in the why?

    LOL Now you weren’t even replying to me? These questions were just aimed at anyone named George who might be reading?

    I view ‘replying’ and ‘posing a set of questions’ as not falling within the same category. But feel free to disagree.

    (But if hell is a myth, who cares? ) Apparently you do.

    I do, but why do you?

    Who should I blame when some ignoramus lies about birth rates in different Christian versus “secular” countries?

    So if I am gullible or ignorant do you blame me even though I am a result of my evolution (biological and sociological). Perhaps I have a lying gene and I am prone to it, to ensure my natural selection and survival of course.

    SNORT! No bearing on what Warren? Yes…nothing matters to individuals once they realize they are members of genetically evolving populations. Is that the incredibly lame argument you are trying to make in this inane game of twenty questions?

    On what I believe, think, feel, hope for as an individual. So the answer is Yes. Individual interests have no real bearing…Neither yours nor mine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Warren,

    Don't waste your time, you're casting pearls before swine. George's attitude is the product of the evolutionary process, he can't help being an idiot. Nor can he help but treat other people like pond scum. There's obviously a reason for his scathing attacks on Christianity. Perhaps something didn't go his way early in his life, struck out in the ninth inning with the game on the line in 6th grade or got stood up on prom night, who knows? But he likes to trash people and then make "value judgments" when he's treated the same way he treats others. He's a guy that just likes to fight for nothing, he's an aggressive animal--kind of like a wasp on a hot day in Texas--just wants to sting somethin' (now he'll point out that a wasp is an insect, not an animal, cuz he's so smart and all). So, Warren, perhaps digging a ditch or splitting a few stacks of logs would be more productive and rewarding, than trying to get an intelligent answer from George. He's too brilliant for us, we're just fleas, mosquitos, to be swatted and squished. His argumentation is so great, why debate these issues any longer?

    George,

    You're still going to bow the knee before this "Hebrew tribal deity" you revile so much. The lake of fire you mock will become very real at some future date (if you don't repent). Your self-deception won't help you then. Now you can whine and moan, and correct my spelling, because that's your specialty....

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anon,

    I really am trying to understand where George is coming from and since I don't have the luxury of knowing his personal history I will not assume it.

    But based on our exchange I am beginning to form certain assumptions and opinions. So beyond all the bravado and rhetoric, IMHO, here is what I believe to be the crux of George’s dilemma.

    All our thoughts, beliefs, morals etc. are the result of our evolution. That would include religious thought and beliefs as well.

    If George does not agree then what is his explanation for the consistency of religious thought and belief throughout our recorded history?

    He cannot impose a supernatural explanation so just about every answer he can give will inevitably relate it back to an evolutionary mechanism or the result of evolutionary mechanisms.

    If George does agree then all worldviews, even opposing worldviews, are equally valid. Even though according to him some may be deluded, they would all serve their purpose within our evolutionary development.

    So the question remains, why is he so adamantly against the particular worldview of Protestant Calvinism?

    I am sure he’d respond by saying that it sucks because it claims to be the only true way, it’s not scientific, it’s superstitious, it’s bigoted etc. And what does it really matter since it is one result of the evolutionary processes. Evolution will take its course no matter what he or what anyone else thinks or believes.

    As an individual his only value within evolution is not what he thinks, believes or feels. That’s actually irrelevant. It’s simply that he has the ability to transmit genetic code. (The hyphen between his date of birth and date of death)

    So his answer to the question, “So what”, is really not some deep psychological expalantion but simply, “because I think you are deluded and I like having some fun”.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Warren,

    Your final assessment is correct. If his arguments stood on their own, he wouldn't have to include the denegrating rhetoric. But because he's so brilliant that he can't understand why anyone would disagree with him, he throws hissy fits. He's the type that overturns the chess board because he's losing. But he's also got that mean streak. You know, he'll kick your puppy or slap your grandma because he doesn't like you. To him, that's OK, it's a cruel world after all...

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why should John W. Loftus have a problem with talking animals (like snakes) when he sees a talking animal every time he looks in the mirror?! After all, evolution assumes that man is nothing more than evolved animals. Sheesh, even cockatoos can talk.

    But the thing of it is though, John W. Loftus doesn't believe words have any objective meaning to them (#90):

    "There is no objective truth about a word I choose to use in a way I want to use it. You just have to understand what I mean by it, that's all. I never have to use words the way you or anyone else dictate, and no one else does either. We just have to understand how they use their words."

    You can say something as stupid as goo-goo, gah-gah, and that can mean anything from "John W. Loftus is a tool" to "John W. Loftus is a girlie-man" or whatever.

    In spite of it all, whatever comes out of an animal's mouth has no real objective meaning than what comes out of a human's mouth... so, why should Johnny even complain about whether the talking animal indeed talks about "something"?

    ReplyDelete