(September 14, 2011 at 7:46 pm)Shell B Wrote: I was being sarcastic. Apparently, you don't get the hint very well. I'm seriously done with this conversation. Until you are able to actually discuss things without just asserting that you know better than everyone else who thinks differently than you, it is just a waste of time -- one that I have been sucked into far too much. Please feel free to follow this up with some insulting comment about people running away from conversations. I care not. You can't have a conversation with a brick and I am going to stop trying. Just so you know, putting words in people's mouths is being dishonest. You do it in effort to make yourself look better. Thankfully, the riffraff around here are astute enough to notice it or I might actually be offended by your paraphrasing.

So you can’t actually point to any examples where I have been dishonest? So you were actually bearing false witness and being dishonest? How ironic.

---

(September 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(September 13, 2011 at 8:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: He didn’t think anyone owned him and made up his own morality too you know.

And the leaders of the Inquisition?

What about them?

(September 14, 2011 at 7:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Firstly, I never used the number of stories about gods to try and prove god exists.

I never said you did, but what other 'proof' is there?

Quote:Secondly, the existence of a fairy has no bearing on man’s views of morality, existence, and purpose.

Why not?

Quote:If fairies were discovered to exist tomorrow it would not affect my views on morality.

How can you say that a lack of acknowledgement or disbelief in gods has an effect, but meeting a real fairy would not? You agreed with my statement of atheism being a part of the persona, so why would you not think that a belief in fairies could mold one's world view. Even if only a minute smidgen?

Quote:If the God of the Bible appeared to you tomorrow I assure you that you’d do some revising of your worldview.

I would need to seek psychiatric help for sure. Besides, if the god-of-the-bible showed up, I would seek Satan out to save me from enslavement. I have no desire to board the Borg ship or spend eternity tending god's garden. (Revelations 21:9-17/Genesis 2:15)

---

(September 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)IATIA Wrote: And the leaders of the Inquisition?

(September 14, 2011 at 8:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What about them?

My assumption was your Dahmer quote was to suggest the evils of atheist morality. The Inquisition was not one, but a whole congress of people dedicated to enforcing the 'moral code' of the bible.

(And BTW. Have you actually read that book from cover to cover? Man, that is one scary psychopath.)

(September 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: I never said you did, but what other 'proof' is there?

I am sure you are aware that there are far more proposed “proofs” of God’s existence right?

Quote:How can you say that a lack of acknowledgement or disbelief in gods has an effect, but meeting a real fairy would not? You agreed with my statement of atheism being a part of the persona, so why would you not think that a belief in fairies could mold one's world view. Even if only a minute smidgen?

Well maybe a minute smidgen, but that’s an insignificant comparison really.

Quote:I would need to seek psychiatric help for sure.

I smell circularity!
A. I don’t believe in God because there is no proof of His existence.
B. But what if he appeared to you and gave you proof of His existence?
C. I’d seek psychiatric help.
D. Why?
E. Because I’d be seeing something I know does not exist.
F. How do you know He does not exist?
G. RETURN TO STEP A

Quote: Besides, if the god-of-the-bible showed up, I would seek Satan out to save me from enslavement. I have no desire to board the Borg ship or spend eternity tending god's garden. (Revelations 21:9-17/Genesis 2:15)

Well tending God’s garden was Adam’s original role, not believers today. I see no mention of the Borg ship in Revelation; I do see Satan losing though, so why would you seek out and join the losing team? That seems pretty….well…dumb.

(September 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)IATIA Wrote: My assumption was your Dahmer quote was to suggest the evils of atheist morality.

Nope, it was to point out that he took the exact same view on morality that Shell did (that nobody owns you and you can make up your own rules) even though I am sure she thinks what he did was wrong which proves that she actually believes in an absolute form of morality even though she claims to believe in a relative form of it. If morality was actually self determined then what Dahmer did was not wrong because it’s just different strokes for different folks and if it’s your thing to have sex with the dead and eat their flesh then whatever floats your boat.

Quote: The Inquisition was not one, but a whole congress of people dedicated to enforcing the 'moral code' of the bible.

How is something a bunch of Catholics did nearly a thousand years ago at all relevant to a Reformed Christian?

Quote: (And BTW. Have you actually read that book from cover to cover? Man, that is one scary psychopath.)

*Sigh* Yes I have read it. Where do you get your moral authority to say that anything God did was wrong or that he was a psychopath? (Someone with a mental disorder).

(September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am sure you are aware that there are far more proposed “proofs” of God’s existence right?

If that is what you wish to call them.

(September 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: I would need to seek psychiatric help for sure.

(September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I smell circularity!
A. I don’t believe in God because there is no proof of His existence.

There is no god to believe in or disbelieve. It has nothing to do with proof or lack thereof. There just really is no such thing as a god.

Quote:B. But what if he appeared to you and gave you proof of His existence?
C. I’d seek psychiatric help.
D. Why?
E. Because I’d be seeing something I know does not exist.

Contrary to my statement in jest, I believe anything I see, but even if there were a god, it could not possibly appear before me anymore than it could make a rock so big that it could not move it.

Quote:F. How do you know He does not exist?

The same way I know fairies do not exist and the same way you know Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and Zeus do not exist.

Quote:G. RETURN TO STEP A

No need to, as it is not circular.

(September 14, 2011 at 8:15 pm)IATIA Wrote: Besides, if the god-of-the-bible showed up, I would seek Satan out to save me from enslavement. I have no desire to board the Borg ship or spend eternity tending god's garden. (Revelations 21:9-17/Genesis 2:15)

(September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well tending God’s garden was Adam’s original role, not believers today.

It was his only role!

Quote:I see no mention of the Borg ship in Revelation; I do see Satan losing though, so why would you seek out and join the losing team? That seems pretty….well…dumb.

Then obviously you did not read it or you do not know who the Borg are. As to a losing team, I will always fight on the side of freedom, regardless.

(September 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)IATIA Wrote: My assumption was your Dahmer quote was to suggest the evils of atheist morality.

(September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope, it was to point out that he took the exact same view on morality that Shell did (that nobody owns you and you can make up your own rules) even though I am sure she thinks what he did was wrong which proves that she actually believes in an absolute form of morality even though she claims to believe in a relative form of it. If morality was actually self determined then what Dahmer did was not wrong because it’s just different strokes for different folks and if it’s your thing to have sex with the dead and eat their flesh then whatever floats your boat.

Is not that what I just said??

(September 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)IATIA Wrote: The Inquisition was not one, but a whole congress of people dedicated to enforcing the 'moral code' of the bible.

(September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How is something a bunch of Catholics did nearly a thousand years ago at all relevant to a Reformed Christian?

1220 to 1834. It only ended less that 200 years ago. And the relevance is the fact that the source of morals does not in any way determine the quality of the morals.

(September 14, 2011 at 7:50 pm)IATIA Wrote: (And BTW. Have you actually read that book from cover to cover? Man, that is one scary psychopath.)

(September 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: *Sigh* Yes I have read it. Where do you get your moral authority to say that anything God did was wrong or that he was a psychopath? (Someone with a mental disorder).

Meooww! Phssst! Phssst!
As you missed the Borg episode and do not see the psychopathy, then you did not read it well or you did not read it all. Explain again the reason to "dash babies heads on the rocks" or the flood thing. This god was not smart enough to come up with a better solution than killing all the living things on the face of the earth? I think babble-god did it for fun. Psychopath. Look it up. If you are going to defend a god, my recommendation would be to pick a different one. JMHO.

---

(September 13, 2011 at 8:36 am)IATIA Wrote: We live in a deterministic universe

(September 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: Wouldn't that necessitate that the universe be a closed system? We're not entirely sure that is the case.

No.

(September 13, 2011 at 8:36 am)IATIA Wrote: and our 'free will' is nothing more than our consciousness/awareness 'explaining to our mind' what we have already done.

(September 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: Free will is about more than what you have done. It is about what we will do and what we want to do. I definitely disagree with the above statement, but am open to elaboration.

I would be more than happy to open a new thread on that subject. My views are backed with mainstream science.

(September 13, 2011 at 8:36 am)IATIA Wrote: And probably, all of reality is nothing more than a construct of our awareness. (I am still on the bench with that.)

(September 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: Hm. This depends on what you define as a "construct." Does this mean our awarenesses have made up reality for us? Or . . . is this more abstract? I guess it is only the word "construct" I disagree with here. I would use the word interpretation and call it a day.

Like I said, I am still on the bench with that particular idea. If true, it is a 'construct'. It is the only explanation that allows true 'free will' without a god. Otherwise, free will is just an illusion.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Special pleading, you can’t agree that Christian Theism is a worldview for the same reasons that make Atheism a worldview and then turn around and say atheism Is not a worldview. They either both are or they both are not.

Actually if you demonstrate a difference or a problem in the comparison then it is completely valid to label one a 'worldview' and the other not. A 'worldview' is generally held to be the fundamental cognitive belief system of an individual encompassing ethics, epistemology and other fundamental personal philosophical ideas.

In this sense 'Christian Theism' as a worldview provides these things directly as prescribed in scripture and other sources of authority. Atheism on the other hand, only serves to influence the individual’s tendencies towards some of these philosophical positions over others. It does not prescribe any one of these positions on any issue as dogmatic as 'Christian Theism' or in your case 'Reformed Christian Theism' seems to.

In light of this I would suggest that your claim that Atheism is a worldview in the same sense that your Reformed Christian Theism is a worldview is false and that an individual’s atheism is one of a number of beliefs which form their worldview.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The foundation of your life is your disbelief in the God of scripture.

This is a bare assertion not supported by the reality of the situation. You don't know what beliefs myself, Shell or anyone else ground their lives in and your claim that the foundation is our mutual 'disbelief in the God of Scripture' can be shown to be false by parallel;


The foundation of your life Statler is your disbelief in Raw, Apophis, Nirrti & Co. I know this because you live your life as if they are not your rightful masters and that belief influences all your other beliefs.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You made the comparison by taking the exact same position on morality that he did (prior to his conversion), don’t blame me.

One would think that comparing someone to Jeffery Dahmer based on a casual remark in a discussion is unfounded and unfair Statler. It is also a form of the 'Question Begging Epithet' fallacy whereby you are trying to belittle Shells argument by drawing an unfounded and emotive comparison. In short, I think you owe her an apology.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Hey Sam,

That’s not really how it works, it’s not my responsibility to demonstrate that all other worldviews fail, I can demonstrate that Christianity can account for those things. If you have another worldview that you thing can (preferably the one you ascribe to) we can discuss it.

If you had said that they can be shown to be inadequate you would have a point. However, you have said on several occasions that they have been shown to be inadequate. In order to support that assertion I am asking you to sight your sources.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I would suggest that it might be easier to take each of the preconditions you think Christianity can be the sole source for and discuss them in succession with reference to both my own and your position on them. It would probably be best if we do this somewhere other than an Introduction thread though

(September 14, 2011 at 6:42 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I would disagree with you there, all atheists do have atheistic worldviews, you will never find an atheist who holds to beliefs that rely on the supernatural or some form of deity because then they would no longer be an atheist. The fact that atheists have different believes does not discount atheism as a worldview itself.

I think I think I explained my objections to this argument at the start of this post. I don't think I need to re-iterate here.

(September 14, 2011 at 6:44 pm)Shell B Wrote: You're not intruding, Sam. Stat, if you're not going to post anything, don't post. ETA: I see you fixed it. Thanks.

Thanks Shell.

Sam

I will post a reply once I figure out why it won't show up when I post it.

(September 16, 2011 at 6:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I will post a reply once I figure out why it won't show up when I post it

It will probably one of the [quote] tags. It took me three shots on mine.

Quote:If that is what you wish to call them.

You don’t know all of the theistic proofs proposed through the centuries?

Quote: There is no god to believe in or disbelieve. It has nothing to do with proof or lack thereof. There just really is no such thing as a god.

How do you know this?

Quote: Contrary to my statement in jest, I believe anything I see, but even if there were a god, it could not possibly appear before me anymore than it could make a rock so big that it could not move it.

False analogy, the rock point is a logical contradiction; God appearing before you is not a logical contradiction so you are going to have to expand on this point if you wish it to be logically coherent.

Quote:The same way I know fairies do not exist and the same way you know Mars, Jupiter, Apollo and Zeus do not exist.

Wait, I know that Mars, Jupiter, Apollo, and Zeus do not exist because scripture says they do not, so you know Yahweh does not exist because scriptures says He does not? Scripture says he does though.

Quote:No need to, as it is not circular.

It is more just logically incoherent really; I need to know how you know that God, Zeus, and fairies do not exist if it is not a “lack of proof or evidence” as you stated above.

Quote: It was his only role!

How does that apply to believers today?

Quote:Then obviously you did not read it or you do not know who the Borg are. As to a losing team, I will always fight on the side of freedom, regardless.

I know enough to know they are cybernetic, I see know reference to cybernetics in Revelation. Satan is not free, he is currently bound by the preaching of the Gospel, so maybe you should choose a different side.

Quote:Is not that what I just said??

No, you said something about the evils of the atheistic worldview, which I agree it, is evil but I was more pointing out its inconsistencies.

Quote: It only ended less that 200 years ago. And the relevance is the fact that the source of morals does not in any way determine the quality of the morals.

The dates I saw put the end of the inquisition farther back than that, be careful though Shell will jump in here and start calling you dumb for believing there was only one “inquisition”. Well the leaders of the inquisition morals were not based on scripture they were based on the heads of the church, so I would argue that they made the same error that Dahmer did, they made men their final moral authority.

Quote:(And BTW.
As you missed the Borg episode and do not see the psychopathy, then you did not read it well or you did not read it all. Explain again the reason to "dash babies heads on the rocks" or the flood thing. This god was not smart enough to come up with a better solution than killing all the living things on the face of the earth? I think babble-god did it for fun. Psychopath. Look it up. If you are going to defend a god, my recommendation would be to pick a different one. JMHO.

You still have not explained how a God could suffer from psychopathy which of course is a human mental illness. I will wait for you to do that. I also still want you to explain how you determine your moral standard that you seem to think applies to God. Thanks.

(September 16, 2011 at 7:46 am)Sam Wrote: In this sense 'Christian Theism' as a worldview provides these things directly as prescribed in scripture and other sources of authority. Atheism on the other hand, only serves to influence the individual’s tendencies towards some of these philosophical positions over others. It does not prescribe any one of these positions on any issue as dogmatic as 'Christian Theism' or in your case 'Reformed Christian Theism' seems to.

I disagree, Christians disagree on such matters just as much as atheists do, and Christian Theism is still a worldview, it just has many subclasses much like atheism does. Some atheists are empiricists, some are naturalists some are relativists but they are all part of the grander worldview known as atheism. Unfortunately many atheists try to run from this fact because they realize that in the court of philosophical ideas atheism is rather weak.

Quote: In light of this I would suggest that your claim that Atheism is a worldview in the same sense that your Reformed Christian Theism is a worldview is false and that an individual’s atheism is one of a number of beliefs which form their worldview.

Well I don’t believe that atheism and Christian Theism are similiar in every way, I think Christian Theism is a far superior worldview, but atheism is a worldview for the exact same reasons solipsism is. When you deny the existence of something that fundamentally influences your belief system as a whole (God for atheists, anything outside of one’s own mind for solipsists), that denial becomes your primary worldview.

Quote:This is a bare assertion not supported by the reality of the situation. You don't know what beliefs myself, Shell or anyone else ground their lives in and your claim that the foundation is our mutual 'disbelief in the God of Scripture' can be shown to be false by parallel

So you are suggesting that you hold a standard of morality, existence and purpose that is in fact grounded in the existence of God? I doubt it; I bet all of them exclude the existence of God.

Quote: The foundation of your life Statler is your disbelief in Raw, Apophis, Nirrti & Co. I know this because you live your life as if they are not your rightful masters and that belief influences all your other beliefs.

Not quite, I do not believe in those other gods because my God says they do not exist, so in fact my Christian Theism drives my disbelief in those gods, not the other way around.

Quote:One would think that comparing someone to Jeffery Dahmer based on a casual remark in a discussion is unfounded and unfair Statler. It is also a form of the 'Question Begging Epithet' fallacy whereby you are trying to belittle Shells argument by drawing an unfounded and emotive comparison. In short, I think you owe her an apology.

If the comparison was unfounded then why did everyone know I was making it to Shell when all I did was post the quote by Dahmer? I didn’t say anything; just posted the quote and everyone (even Shell) realized that I was making a comparison with her remarks because they were so similar to Dahmer’s. If you don’t wish to be compared to Dahmer then I would avoid justifying your concepts of morality exactly like he did. While we are on the topic, maybe you can answer this question since everyone else has dodged it. If nobody really does own us and we really can adopt our own concepts of morality as Shell suggested then why are you so outraged by my comparison? Can’t I just adopt a concept of morality where I can compare people to Dahmer and it is just different strokes for different folks?

Quote:If you had said that they can be shown to be inadequate you would have a point. However, you have said on several occasions that they have been shown to be inadequate. In order to support that assertion I am asking you to sight your sources.

Oh I see what you mean now, well Van Til, Clark, and Bahnsen have all written numerous essays that demonstrate the failures of secular worldviews. Rather than making you poke through all of them I think it’s just easier to propose a worldview and critique it.

Quote: I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I would suggest that it might be easier to take each of the preconditions you think Christianity can be the sole source for and discuss them in succession with reference to both my own and your position on them. It would probably be best if we do this somewhere other than an Introduction thread though

Absolutely! I think it’d be fun, let me know where you’d like to discuss this.

[quote='IATIA' pid='179787' dateline='1316213523']
It will probably one of the

Quote: tags. It took me three shots on mine.

It was! Thanks!

LOL, "siding with freedom". From his chair here on the Prison Planet Earth. Founded, owned, and operated by the executioner, who judged you before you were born. What a joke. Everytime you open your mouth you shit on someones grave don't you.

The only thing you side with is yourself. I don't even know why you're here. Go talk to a mirror.