Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Atheist move: Truth by Snubbing


This is a small part of a running battle I've been having on Theology Web with a guy called "Tassman." He's making the standard diatribe about natural vs. supernatural. I am arguing that that dichotomy is imposed by modern science not Christian theology. After several such exchanges I knocked him down about six times he kept coming back in just the same way.



Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
sorry I disagree.

(1) God is not non natural. That's a late concept that comes from modern era mainly the enlightenment. There was already a couple of thousand years of talk about God before anyone suggested that God is opposed to nature. God created nature no reason to thin He's opposed.
You’re assuming without substantive evidence that God exists.

(2) there is no reason to think forces of fate in superstition are not natural
There is no good reason to think that anything is not natural.

(3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.
‘Bald Assertion’ fallacy.

(4) your link from God to SN is bogus. "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural" that does not make the basis for the link explicit.
sN was talked about hundreds of years before the idea of God being opposed to nature. SN is not supposed to nature..
SN is not superstition.
I’ll stick with the commonly accepted definition of ‘supernatural’: 1.(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:a supernatural being. (Oxford Dictionary)

please read my essay on true Christian concept of the supernatural

Part 1

Part 2


Part 3

Tassman
No thanks. I’ll forgo your ‘Proofs by Verbosity’.




Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
You’re assuming without substantive evidence that God exists.
Meta 
wrong on2 counts

(1) I have substantive evidence I just don't have a good venue to display it.

(2) you asserted God is SN does that mean you assume God exists? Obviously I'm talking about the concept of SN

 Tassman     
There is no good reason to think that anything is not natural.


    
Meta: that's what I just said

I said: (3) "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. " God is not "superhuman." That's a magnification of man but God is the basis of reality. you used Oxford Dictionary and that is about popular usage you need Westminster theological dictionary.

you say:

Bald Assertion’ fallacy.
 
    
there is no such thing as a bald assertion fallacy but you are simply wrong what I said is neither a bald assertion or a fallacy.
again we are talking about the concept the assumption of God's reality has to be made to made to discuss the concept.

 Tassman     
I’ll stick with the commonly accepted definition of ‘supernatural’: 1.(Of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:a supernatural being. (Oxford Dictionary)     

 
Meta
I've already proved it's wrong. read the link you are just saying "I'll stick with the popular misconception." just like an atheist love to be wrong.

(see the three links above)
 
Tassman
No thanks. I’ll forgo your ‘Proofs by Verbosity’     

(broken record--for those remember records)


Meta
ok class what kind of person makes bold aggressive comments and you prove him wrong refuses to read the evidence in front of his face? Um a Trump supporter?


 skip several more go-rounds

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
The concept of the supernatural was indeed different before the advent of modern science. Now it’s irrelevant.
 
Meta:
of course it's relevant what the Christian idea is because that's what you are arguing is the untruth of Christian ideas. you are making straw man argument

Tass
Links please!
 
    
Meta: to the studies? http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/



Tass
The seeming experience of the mystical is purely brain activity. It’s based upon wish fulfilment, auto-suggestion and is purely subjective.


Meta:
 there's a whole chapter [in my book] disproving that in the book. essentially the studies showing mystical experience is good for you and valid are controlled. Study instrument called "the M scale" proves a true mystical experience fro, a false one. The studies that reduce the experience to brain chemistry are not controlled and don't use the M scale. Thus they can't probe they are dealing with real mystical experience.


Tass
It can also be induced by certain types of epilepsy or hallucinogens,
 
    
Meta:
false. Drugs facilitate but do not cause. there are numerous differences. there's a large portion of a chapter in the trace of God about that too.


Tass
which reinforces the purely material nature of the phenomenon. It exists only in the minds of the delusional.

Meta:
wrong, the studies show measurable results. the effects are real
(what he is saying here is like Bob Dylan's joke psychiatrist tells him "those old dreams are only in your head.")
Tass
What book?
 
Meta: it finals dawns on him
 
    
the one with the studies in it. not paying attention? I linked to it above.

The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman, on amazon



Tass
Nope. You asserted it, you haven’t shown it.
 
    
Meta
yup I did show it. that's what the studies are about, studies are in the book, I keep talking about the book.



Tass
Sigh!

you should be frustrated because your whole smug anti-religious nonsense is just hot air. that is proved by the stuff I've linked to.

[at this point I made an analogy to air bags wh9ich I somehow don't see here]
Tass
Air-bags exist, the supernatural does not.
 
    
Meta:
obviously it does exist because the studies prove it. you are just reciting a mantra

Tass
Any claim, any explanation of an event, falls within the scope of science because science is a method of investigation. That’s Coyne’s argument.
 
 
    
Meta:

that's nonsense. It's clearly double talk because when religious people state beliefs they are talking metaphysics and that's unproved so untrue. when you state your dogma it's "science " and science is always true. Science is not the understanding of reality. It's about one narrow aspect of reality. empirical data about the workings of the physical world.


Tass
Nope. Merely questioning your unsubstantiated claims.

Meta:
that's nonsense. you are doing circular reasoning that's obvious. you have not read a single study but you assert their untruth then use that to assert the untruth of the 52 arguments. You had no valid argument to begin with.

your arguments are all undergirded by dogma rather than facts


Tass
Enough already!
 
    
Meta:
yes, I've cleaned your clock about five times now. why don't you send Old Jery Cyote over here. I would love to debate him.



I saw this statement on Dangerous Idea blog today. It has not6hing to do with Tassman but it describes him perfectly:

March 29, 2016 8:04 AM
Delete
Blogger B. Prokop said...
Of course, there is always this:

Even after the plain truth has been thoroughly demonstrated, so far as a person is capable of doing, the confirmed skeptic will insist on maintaining belief in his own irrational notions. This is due to either a great blindness, which renders him incapable of seeing what is plainly set before him, or on account of an opinionative obstinacy, which prevents him from acknowledging the truth of what he does see. Thence arises the woeful necessity of going to ridiculous lengths to expound yet more fully on what we have already made perfectly clear, in hopes that we might get through to those who close their minds to reason.

And yet how shall we ever profit from our discussions, or what bounds can be set to our discourse, if we forever fall to the temptation of replying to those who reply to us? We must acknowledge that those who are so hardened by the habit of contradiction will never yield, but would rather reply out of stubbornness, even when they recognize their own error.
(Saint Augustine, The City of God)




 

4 comments:

JBsptfn said...

That was nice. Typical atheist denial. When he asked "What book?", you should have said The Cat in The Hat. Atheists would probably rather read that than the Bible (although even Dr. Seuss may be too advanced for some of them).

Joe Hinman said...

yea, that's a good one. one funny thing he came back after this one and had a study he though disproved my stuff. It's one I use in the book to corroborate my ideasl

JBsptfn said...

Oh, geez. They are a lot of fun.

Joe Hinman said...

now they are going after pride of authorshi8p.l because I wrote the book it's no good. atheists are such cowards. I have a thread up for days about the God argument based on my book, they say noth9ngabout it while all the time going "there is not one single bit of proof for God"