Saturday, March 20, 2010

Old Atheist Fallacy "you can't make the argument until you prove it:" Form of circular reasoning.

There are two really silly debate ploys that people sometimes use. I don't say they are peculiar to the atheist camp, but since I am more familiar with their arguments, than those of creationists, for example, I will use them. My aim is to raise consciousness about these fallacies in an attempt to get people to stop using them.

these two fallacies exist in an interchange, a sublational interplay where one builds upon the other.

The two fallacies are:

(1) privileging one's own position

(2) Truth by Stipulation.

As it turns out the kids who offer the $500 to prove Jesus existed employ no. 1 fallacy in spaces. They have erased the comments but before they did so they informed one commentator that he could not use Raymond Brown as an authority because Brown was a priest. It's just so obvious that a Priest is not objective, and they said explicitly that no one with a theology degree could be used. What's really buzzer is that they themselves use religious thinkers all the time, and they use them to support their own views? It has not yet dawned on them that they are quoting liberals and that liberals have the own faith. One striking example of this is their use of Bualtmann. They even declared "Rudolf Bluesman is a non Christian." The reason they thought he wasn't a Christian is because he doesn't take the Bible literally. So they know so little about theology they domt' even know that there is a liberal wing of the theological world (and thought his name was "Bluesman"). All they know of Christianity is the funds, and yet they are so sure they know all about it, so much so that they can dims Ray Brown as "subjective." Rayon Brown is one of the top textual critics in the world, or he was before his death (1998). But they wont allow him in the discussion because he was a priest. As though this immanently rational scholar just goes gaga when he sees the Bile, but he can still learn Greek, decipher manuscripts in ancient script, do hard textual criticism, but somehow his judgment is so impaired that he's just out of control.

I made the same mistake in my youth, so I cannot judge these guys too harshly. Stung by an encounter with a preacher who taught at a local preaching school, who wiped me out in a debate with the use of Josh McDonnell (I was fresh out of high school and McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict was still pretty new), I went in search of Biblical scholars who would counter McDowell. I discovered Brunet Hillman Strutter. Strutter published The Primitive Church in 1924, he was killed in a plain crash in India in the 40's. He was the cancan reader at Cambridge in the 20s-40s. One of the finest scholars of the early part of the 20th century. Streeter was a liberal of his day, meaning, a ninetieth century style liberal. He did, however, have a strong faith which manifested itself in mystical consciousness. He even found Saudi Sunder Sing, an interesting case of Christian mystic who had grown up a Ski in India and had a Damascus Road experience in which Jesus spoke to him out of a great light. Streeter was very impressed with Sing and cultivated a friendship. I was heartened to find his book on the Primitive Church. He seemed to tear the Bible to pieces. Little did I know he loved the Bible, he was not tearing it at all but merely preparing the reader to read it intelligently. The Primitive Church rapidly became one of my favorite books.

One day as I read Streeter I came across a statement he makes in which he declares his faith and speaks in a devotional manner about "our Lord." I was stocked! he was a believer after all! How could this be? He tears the Bible to pieces. He even say it has mistakes in it. He must be mad. That was when I realized there's a lot more to the theological world than I realized. It's not all just a matter of Christians are stupid fools with simplistic little zombie brains and atheist are all smart little bastards like me (as I was then). That realization was truly shocking to me, and it was one of the first stepping stones that put me on the a path to conversion. But some atheists, the less adapt at argumentation, have learned to privilege their position, and they do so in such a way that the create a simplistic formulation along the lines of their own ideological conceits: objectivity is good, our side is objective. Subjectivity is bad, their side is subjective. We good, they bad. That privileging is seen at work creating a king's x to rule out the use of any epistemic authority of scholarly expertise that would count against their position. In this sense fallacy 1 bleeds into fallacy 2 as it becomes truth by stipulation. The privileging of the position works itself into truth by stipulation.

We can see this dichotomy of privilege at work in the exclusion of the NT as any sort of artifact in evidence of the historical Jesus. The atheist community (SEC Web, infidel guy) have it down to a point where the New Testament, especially the Gospels are almost irrelevant to any discussion of the historical Jesus. Once the potentates of mediocrity at the SW decided to declare the Gospels fictional (truth by stipulation) they just wiped out any need to use them. Any references to them are just met with the magical king's X, this is wiped away because we declare it to be fictional and end of comment. A snowball effect occurs whereby the privileging leads to stipulating and the stipulating undergirds the privileging. Before long they just ignore anything any Christian has to say. We see this already happening in the exclusion of any priest or anyone with a theology degree. Of course their ignorance binges theologians back into the picture but only because they are haplessly unaware of their own fumbling. How cod anyone logically fight such a syndrome? If we try to play the same game and stipulate our side it's just mattress taste in conflict. If we try to remain steadfast to the scholarship they have that ignored and it doesn't matter to them. So little by little they cut themselves off from any rational discussion. How ironic for the children who call themselves "The Rational Response Squad." Those are the one's offering money to prove that Jesus existed. They could save their money and read my historical Jesus pages, but we will let them find that out for themselves.

Fallacy no two I have seen employed in many ways at many times. It was most recently employed at CARM in arguing about religious experience studies. But I have it used a lot in every God argument. I called this "truth by stimulation" but it works in a particular way. It works out to be truth by stipulation, but it begins with the assertion "you can't make that argument until it is proven." I first encountered it in making a God argument. The atheist says 'you can't start an argument by referring to God because that's assuming God exits.' I say "but this argument is an argument to prove God exits. So how do I speak of God in order to prove he exists," "you can't, you must first prove he exists, otherwise you ear begging the question." I swear that's what he said. It destine' take a rhetorical genius to see that if this is taken literally or seriously one can never make an argument. To make an argument one must first make it, then the making of it proves something. But how can you prove an argument before you make it? But the fact is, that's what these guys want. They want a cheap way to shut up talk of God because they know they can't go toe to toe on the logic of God arguments. That's why God arguments are back. So this position works itself out to be a stimulation, "there is no God" period, no need for proof, that's just the way it is. That means you can't begin a discussion about God becasue even to prove God that would beg the question.

Both of these fallacies are arrived at from a basic starting point in the subject/object dichotomy. That starting point is one of fear. These people fear anything subjective, so much so that they have to plac themselves in a strict position of stimulation that no subjectivity must ever cross their path. Of course they privilege their own guys as good and objective. That means that they use their own subjective taste to affirm the objectivity of their camp. AS it turns out their critical principle is nothing more than supreme arrogance. This kind of atheist, I shall call them the stipulationists, assert their view point based upon the assumption that all knowledge is empirically derived and inductive. Thus only objective observation can be used to understand knowledge. Subjectivity has no place in knowledge, because knowledge must be absolute. There is no room for error.

Of course the amusing part is, they have no objective data for any of their views. They are so horribly subjective they don't even know that there are liberal theologians. They are so horribly subjective that their basic myther position is made up almost entirely of an argument form silence, lacks any kind of objective data. The Christian potion on historical Jesus has a lot data behind it than the myther position does. We have sources from the first century that at least assert that Jesus was a guy in history. But the mythers have not one single source that denies this, not until the eighteenth century! The reason the stipulation must privilege their position and wipe out all evidence that counts against them by stipulating it under the King's X is becuase they are afraid to actually argue honestly.

Examples:




Rex our on loyal oppoent has provided us with prime examples of these truth by stipulation and the old "you can't make the argument until you prove it:"



I'm with Hermit. Your recent statements on the existence of god are all well and good, the only problem is that they are very involved and detailed rationalizations for someone who starts with the flawed assumption that a supreme being exists. Then you try to weave a very nice story to convince yourself that your opening conclusion is correct.

The real issue is that you begin with the assumption that a god exists, and I don't.

Actually not true because my argument (see last post) does not begin from a premise that God exists. It argues from the premise that God concept is more elegant solution, not that God exists. What he's talking about is actually much more fundamental error that stems form not understating the nature of debate. He's arguing that his position should be privileged and mine unprivileged becuase likes his and not mine. But arguments are not experiments. They are not open ended investigations they are designed to prove a certain point, so to have a valid argument you have to know what you are arguing for. He's confusing knowing what you are arguing for with resting the conclusion on the primes.

To say "you can't argue for that until you prove it" is circular reasoning becuase the purpose of an argument is to prove something. If you can't argue for X until you prove X how will you prove X? This whole truth by stipulation thing is just symptomatic of a cult-like propaganda rather than real thought. These people are going to websites being told what to think and the spitting it back without really understanding it. That's the basis of he whole atheist movement. They have no arguments, they can't prove anything, all they ever do is privilege their doubt and mock and mock anything that doesn't fit the template of their propaganda.

He start by asserting that the true convictions I'm arguing for are premises of the argument, ignoring what I give as the true premise and then mocking the actual logic of the argument by dismissing it as "a nice story." Notice he didn't answer a single argument, he sweeps it all aside because its' not his thing.

That's just as cult-like as you can get.

24 comments:

Kristen said...

Even in science, you have to start with a hypothesis. You can't say, "I'm going to do this experiment with no idea of where I think it might end up or what I'm trying to find out." You can't say, "I'm going to experiment on the effects of electricity but I can't start out assuming that there is any such thing as electricity."

So even if one is going to start from the (unfounded) premise that only the scientific method can yield knowledge, one still has to have a starting place. What these people are saying is that you can't start from a starting place.

It's wild.

Metacrock said...

good point Kristen!

A Hermit said...

"What these people are saying is that you can't start from a starting place."

No, what we're saying is that you can't assume that the hypothesis can't be used as evidence of itself.

I'm also saying that appealing to a mystery isn't useful. If something is truly a mystery then the most we can say about it is "we don't know". Mysteries can't be used to make definitive statements about anything, but what Metacrock ( and anyone else who invents a theodicy to try and explain the need for suffering) ends up doing is appealing to the ineffability of God's purpose to justify their conclusion that suffering is necessary. In my view that's just not supportable.

Metacrock said...

What these people are saying is that you can't start from a starting place."

No, what we're saying is that you can't assume that the hypothesis can't be used as evidence of itself.

I think the real problem is that you odn't know what arguemnts are or how t make them. you are confusing premises with beliefs. you think if I"m arguing for something I believe the premise is the belief. I spell the argument step by step. the first step is net premise. I have no premises anywhere that say "God must exist" I have not one argument and never have that starts that way. but you assume that all my argument start so because you don't know a premise form your asshole.

I'm also saying that appealing to a mystery isn't useful.

that's the obvious thing and it's what I bleieve and it's the way it is. but if you knew anaythinga bout arguemnts you would see that none of my artuments turn on that point. why can't you learn how they work and foolow the logic of one? You just don't get they are step by step actions that go from a to be to c. why can't you follow the steps?

that mystery jazz sets a boundary but that's all it does, it's never a premise.



If something is truly a mystery then the most we can say about it is "we don't know".

well duh! why do you think I say God talk is metaphor? hu? I I still have the experiences, I can't make them go away I know what I got out of them, it would be stupid and hell to pretend they didn't happen.


Mysteries can't be used to make definitive statements about anything,

show me the definitive statements I base on it? this is what I mean you can't follow the steps of an argument, you taking it in big pieces that have nothing to do with what I actually argued.

the thing is you should know what philosophers have said and you should know how they use it and that's what I do. I copy the philosophers and see how they use and I use it that way and there's a whole literature that does and it's real famous you don't' know that because you are not well read in that area.



but what Metacrock ( and anyone else who invents a theodicy to try and explain the need for suffering) ends up doing is appealing to the ineffability of God's purpose to justify their conclusion that suffering is necessary. In my view that's just not supportable.


read the argument and look at what it really says.

you should trace the argument a to be to c and look at how I use that. There's nothing illogical or question begging about using to set boundaries.

you can't show me any argument that I use it as a premise in the argument.

you don't know anything about theology, you have never read any so your just assertion that they do that because it's the only answer you have, the truth of it is your arguemnts are beaten totally and absolutely beaten.

Kristen said...

Metacrock doesn't appeal to the ineffability of God's purpose in suffering. He states quite clearly and plainly what he thinks God's purpose in suffering is. You don't have to agree with it, but it's disingenuous to deny what he actually says.

He also doesn't use the hypothesis as evidence of itself. A hypothesis says, "if this is what's really happening, then these are the results I would expect." The results then support the hypothesis. Hypothesis: If religious experience were really from God, then positive, life-changing results ought to be expected from them. Positive, life-changing results occur from religious experience This supports the hypothesis that God may be behind religious experience. It's not definitive proof, but it's one piece that added to other things, constitutes rational warrant to believe in God.

Sometimes I think, Hermit, that you simply don't want to grant Metacrock anything. Like the song in the old Marx Brothers film: "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"

Disagree with his conclusions all you want. But don't just indiscriminately attack everything and anything he does or says. Anyone who takes a bare minimum of time to actually read what he's saying, can see that he isn't doing what you say he's doing.

If you want him to be fair to you, be fair to him.

Rex said...

@Kristen

You can't say, "I'm going to experiment on the effects of electricity but I can't start out assuming that there is any such thing as electricity."

Which is EXACTLY what I was trying to say to Meta, but when I say it he blows a gasket, and when you say it, he thinks it is a good point. Hmmmmm......

My point was that if you are going to discuss god or atheism, you have to do it from a standpoint of neutrality. You can't do it like the bible flowchart:

1 The bible is the infallible word of god.
2 The word of god is true because it says so in the bible
3 The bible is true because it is the infallible word of god.
GO TO STEP 1

See? It just goes around and around like the wheels on the bus, except it never goes anywhere different.

Metacrock said...

You can't say, "I'm going to experiment on the effects of electricity but I can't start out assuming that there is any such thing as electricity."

Which is EXACTLY what I was trying to say to Meta, but when I say it he blows a gasket, and when you say it, he thinks it is a good point. Hmmmmm......


I don't think you understand what she meant. You DON"T DO That in argument! arguemnt does not start from a black box with no idea where you are going. ARguemnts have to start wtih thhe premsie that you have a belief and you are going to prove it. otherwise there's no debate. That's exactly what a debate is you argue for a belief.

The prmise of the arguemnt can't be "My idea is true therefore it's rue" but it's not. I never use that as a premise.
you don't how to follow an argument.


My point was that if you are going to discuss god or atheism, you have to do it from a standpoint of neutrality. You can't do it like the bible flowchart:


NO NO NO NO NO! you are just fucking ignorant!!! Go read some philosphy of religion books! every singel Philosphy of rleigion book has arguments for God in ti. everyone of them starts form the prmise I'm going prove that God exists! go learn something.

stop wasting my time with baby stuff I learned as a middle school kid. There are fundie websites that can handle your level of intro understanding.


1 The bible is the infallible word of god.
2 The word of god is true because it says so in the bible
3 The bible is true because it is the infallible word of god.
GO TO STEP 1

that is not the way any of my arugemtns work big guy! try use your brain for once hu?

if you could actually understand what you read you would see that. You are just tripping on the fact that you have nothing to say so you fall back on some canned argument that you have heard about. some Christian argue that way because they are stupid therefore this guy must do that go. guess what I don't!

It's totally differnt to say
I believe the bible is the word of God, now here's now I'm going to prove it." As long as the premise of the proof isn't "this is true" then it's not illogical!


See? It just goes around and around like the wheels on the bus, except it never goes anywhere different.


no see it doesn't! what happening is you can't follow an argument. you don't have the slightest idea what my argument said so you just assume that's what I'm going. you are confusing it with arguing for a definite belief. that's two different things.

Kristen said...

Rex, as I'm sure you realize, there is no such thing as a standpoint of neutrality. You have a frame of reference you are starting from; so does Metacrock. You have become convinced that your worldview (which includes atheism) is true. Like it or not, you are starting from that starting point. You may or may not be willing to adjust your conclusions based on further evidence, but you are not neutral.

Metacrock is not neutral either-- but he's not expecting you to start at his starting point. That's what you're accusing him of, but it's not true. He merely wishes to show what led him to his conclusions in the first place. Which, I imagine, is the same thing you're doing.

But you can't start by saying, "I cannot use any frame of reference in discussing this issue." If you do that, you can't discuss anything at all. You can't even think about the topic without a frame of reference. In fact, you can't be human without a frame of reference, unless you are an infant.

Metacrock is not saying "God exists because God exists." He's saying, "I have come to believe God exists, and here are some of the things that led me to that conclusion."

A Hermit said...

'show me the definitive statements I base on it? this is what I mean you can't follow the steps of an argument, you taking it in big pieces that have nothing to do with what I actually argued."

Your whole "soteriological drama" idea is an appeal to mystery. You're basically arguing that we can't be allowed to understand God's purpose because understanding it would undermine that purpose. It seems to me that you are using mystery to explain itself.

A Hermit said...

"Metacrock doesn't appeal to the ineffability of God's purpose in suffering. He states quite clearly and plainly what he thinks God's purpose in suffering is. You don't have to agree with it, but it's disingenuous to deny what he actually says..."

I think he avoids doing just that. there's nothing in the argument to tell us why mystery is necessary for the internalization of values, or how something which is a mystery can be internalized.

I'm not being disingenuous I'm challenging the premise.

"...If you want him to be fair to you, be fair to him."

That has to be a two way street, doesn't it? The existence of suffering is easily explained by the non-existence of God; the observed data are consistent with that hypothesis, but Meta will accuse me of a materialist bias when I make an argument for naturalism. ;-)

Metacrock said...

Metacrock doesn't appeal to the ineffability of God's purpose in suffering. He states quite clearly and plainly what he thinks God's purpose in suffering is. You don't have to agree with it, but it's disingenuous to deny what he actually says..."

I think he avoids doing just that. there's nothing in the argument to tell us why mystery is necessary for the internalization of values, or how something which is a mystery can be internalized.

I'm not being disingenuous I'm challenging the premise.


meta:I don't make any arguments where I appeal to mystery as a basis for proof of something. None not one none of them.

I do show in argument about soteriolgoical drama why a search is required that is not a God arugment it's a free will defense. I don't use mystery as a proof in a God argument.

here it is in the free will defense argument:

Basic assumptions


There are three basic assumptions that are hidden, or perhaps not so obivioius, but nevertheless must be dealt with here.

(1) The assumption that God wants a "moral universe" and that this value outweighs all others.


The idea that God wants a moral universe I take from my basic view of God and morality. Following in the footsteps of Joseph Fletcher (Situation Ethics) I assume that love is the background of the moral universe (this is also an Augustinian view). I also assume that there is a deeply ontological connection between love and Being. Axiomatically, in my view point, love is the basic impetus of Being itself. Thus, it seems reasonable to me that, if morality is an upshot of love, or if love motivates moral behavior, then the creation of a moral universe is essential.


(2) that internal "seeking" leads to greater internalization of values than forced compliance or complaisance that would be the result of intimidation.

That's a pretty fair assumption. We all know that people will a lot more to achieve a goal they truly believe in than one they merely feel forced or obligated to follow but couldn't care less about.

(3)the the drama or the big mystery is the only way to accomplish that end.

The pursuit of the value system becomes a search of the heart for ultimate meaning,that ensures that people continue to seek it until it has been fully internalized.

The argument would look like this:


(1)God's purpose in creation: to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good.

(2) Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated).

(3) Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices

(4)The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free outweighs all other considerations, since without there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.

Metacrock said...

This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.

This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama:


(5) Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultimate goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.

(6) Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us

(7) We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart.

(8) therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.


In other words, we are part of a great drama and our actions and our dilemmas and our choices are all part of the way we respond to the situation as characters in a drama.

This theory also explains why God doesn't often regenerate limbs in healing the sick. That would be a dead giveaway. God creates criteria under which healing takes place, that criteria can't negate the overall plan of a search.

look up there and see observation no 2.

soteriological drama



"...If you want him to be fair to you, be fair to him."

That has to be a two way street, doesn't it? The existence of suffering is easily explained by the non-existence of God; the observed data are consistent with that hypothesis, but Meta will accuse me of a materialist bias when I make an argument for naturalism. ;-)


Meta:No it's not, you are using that as a crutch. there is no logical connection between "the world has suffering therefore there can't be a God." you made that up that is not logical.

There is a basis for argument but ti is by no means the only solution. my argument solves the problem and it explains exactly why a search is necessary.

use the link up there and read it again.

Metacrock said...

'show me the definitive statements I base on it? this is what I mean you can't follow the steps of an argument, you taking it in big pieces that have nothing to do with what I actually argued."

Your whole "soteriological drama" idea is an appeal to mystery. You're basically arguing that we can't be allowed to understand God's purpose because understanding it would undermine that purpose. It seems to me that you are using mystery to explain itself.



Meta:that is so inept. You are confussing justification of mystery with using mystery as a turning point for the argument.

I do not base the argument upon a gam pin knowledge I plain exactly why every step is necessary I never say "we don't know that because it's a mystery but you have to accept it." That's totally different than saying God can make his existence explicit or undeniable.


The whole argument is a logical reason why God would not make himself explicit so that's clearly not the same thing.

you are just using a similarity in words even though the meaning in context are totally different.

A Hermit said...

"I don't make any arguments where I appeal to mystery as a basis for proof of something. None not one none of them."

Yeah, I get that. But you insist that mystery is necessary for internalization of values. But you don't show why it's necessary, or why this mystery is a better explanation for the existence of suffering than the non-existence of God.

A Hermit said...

You know what? Just ignore me right now; I'm in the middle of some serious personal stuff right now and I'm not explaining myself very well...

Metacrock said...

"I don't make any arguments where I appeal to mystery as a basis for proof of something. None not one none of them."

Yeah, I get that. But you insist that mystery is necessary for internalization of values. But you don't show why it's necessary,


srue as hell do, every single time. reason is because we would resent the reality unless we internalize the values. We can only do that by the search, the search would be unnecessary and silly if God was obvious.


or why this mystery is a better explanation for the existence of suffering than the non-existence of God.


I did not say that. that's a distortion of the argument. you are not following line for line.

March 24, 2010 11:18 AM
Delete
Blogger A Hermit said...

You know what? Just ignore me right now; I'm in the middle of some serious personal stuff right now and I'm not explaining myself very well...

that's ok man, hope it works out buddy.

Kristen said...

Hermit, I hope everything will be well for you.

Of course, any philosophical position does include both apparent evidence for the position and apparent evidence against the position. Either side will support its own position using the factors that support, and try to find ways to account for the factors that don't. Atheists, then, must find ways to account for the positive results of religious experience, the anthropic principle in the universe, unexplained sudden healings after prayer, etc-- in the same way theists must find ways to account for suffering. To say that suffering is "better" explained by the lack of existence of God is a misunderstanding of the fact that these are methods theists use to account for suffering-- not as evidence for God per se.

In the same way, sudden unexplained healings after prayer, and positive religious experiences, are frankly better explained by the existence of God than by the methods atheists use to account for them.

Each side of the argument has these factors. You can't say theists use the suffering-can-still-exist-even-if-God-is-real arguments as "evidence" for God, any more than you can say atheists use this-unexplainable-stuff-that-looks-miraculous-really-isn't arguments as "evidence" against God.

I hope I'm making sense.

A Hermit said...

"Hermit, I hope everything will be well for you."

Thanks for the kind thoughts guys; my mother in law has been diagnosed with cancer, probably won't be with us much longer. She is quite elderly, but still an active, energetic lady so its not a big shock, but still lots to deal with here.

"I hope I'm making sense."

Yes you're making perfect sense, in fact that's kind of what I was trying to get across; Meta frequently accuses atheists of being unwilling to consider God as an explanation; it seems to me the same unwillingness often applies to him and other believers; that the presupposition of God isn't any more priveledged than the naturalist presupposition...or something like that...

I've sort of muddled that thought up with my disagreement with Meta's assertion that mystery is necessary, or even useful, to the internalization of values; it seems to me that we internalize ideas better if we are able to clearly articulate them (something I obviously haven't done very well with my ideas in this conversation...maybe next time.)

Metacrock said...

sorry to hear about your mother in law man. I hope she makes it I'll pray for her.

I was an atheist Hermit. So I know all about assuming no God. I discovered the reality of God it was great and it's gotten better. I don't see any reason to screw around with things that already failed.

A Hermit said...

"I don't see any reason to screw around with things that already failed."

That's exactly how I feel about faith...;-)

Metacrock said...

I don't see any reason to screw around with things that already failed."

That's exactly how I feel about faith...;-)


come on now, you really believe that you had the a mystical experience and yet somehow dedicied it was false and moved away from it? Wasn't what you call faith just on paper in words and not "in the spirit?"

A Hermit said...

"come on now, you really believe that you had the a mystical experience and yet somehow dedicied it was false and moved away from it?"

Not false, just misunderstood. And I've embraced it in a new way, not moved away from it.

Metacrock said...

"come on now, you really believe that you had the a mystical experience and yet somehow dedicied it was false and moved away from it?"

Not false, just misunderstood. And I've embraced it in a new way, not moved away from it.

I see. why be an atheist then?

A Hermit said...

"I see. why be an atheist then?"

Because nothing I would call "God" had anything to do with it.

Why was Maslow an atheist?