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

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

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

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.

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)     

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

(broken record--for those remember records)

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.
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

Links please!
Meta: to the studies?

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

 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.

It can also be induced by certain types of epilepsy or hallucinogens,
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.

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

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.")
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

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


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]
Air-bags exist, the supernatural does not.
obviously it does exist because the studies prove it. you are just reciting a mantra

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.

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.

Nope. Merely questioning your unsubstantiated claims.

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

Enough already!
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
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)


Monday, March 28, 2016

Dialogue with Bradly Bowen of secular outpost on Resurrection

  • this is from the comment section on secular outpost where Bowen responded to the post below that I made on this blog. the previous post on this blog here

    I said:
    I think that discussions about the "communities" behind the gospels are highly speculative and of little historical value. The author of Mark never discusses "the community" that is allegedly the true author of his gospel.
    Joe responded:
    every bible scholar there is even the atheists regard that as a given
    What "every bible scholar" assumes to be true is NOT historical evidence. I am asking for historical evidence, not opinion polls of biblical scholars.

      • Avatar

        I think you have been around academia long enough to know how that plays out. there is a reason why it's Consensus. I already told you what that reason is, because oral traditions is not passed by Lone individuals. you are obviously trying to save a disproved argument.
        (1) Jews used oral radiation, that is related to community
        (2) Jewish writing where read in community
        (3)a lot of work on showing rhetorically that it [Mark] was passed on as oral tradition before being written.
        but there is also the statement by Papias about preferring oral tradition to written.
        (5) Paul is quoting so many oral sources, maxims, songs, creeds, the fact that they made creeds all point to oral material and communal understanding.
        (6) Acts basically says it point blank. they moved in together so they could study the bible together. there's a community

        • Avatar

          I said:
          The author of Mark never discusses how many eyewitnesses he spoke with in his "community". The author of Mark never even states that he obtained info about Jesus from his community or anyone from his community. This is all just speculation. Speculation is NOT the same as evidence.
          Joe responded:
          you are assuming Mark is the origin of the story which is just utter ignorance. Attaching a number is bull shit. That's a Mcguffin. It matters not at all but something you can cling to as an unknown and thus save face that you can't disprove the arguments.
          Bowen: Once again, instead of responding with substance and evidence to support your views, you simply distort my views and attack a straw man. This is why I do not take you seriously. Keep this shit up, and I will just go back to ignoring you entirely.
          I am NOT assuming that Mark is the origin of all the content in his gospel, nor am I assuming that the content of his gospel came from his local "community" of believers. I am CHALLENGING YOUR assumptions about the content of Mark, and demanding evidence from you, evidence which you are refusing to provide.

            see more

            • Avatar

              sorry Brad, explaining why your question is nonsequitter is substance. you want to pretend to be a big thinker but you don't want to have to think about it.
              Bowen:I am CHALLENGING YOUR assumptions about the content of Mark, and demanding evidence from you, evidence which you are refusing to provide.
              Me: then try answering the evidence. Not only did I show your question irrelevant I also answered it. the evidence of oral tradition and pre mark redaction (PMPN pre Mark passion narrative) shows that Mark is derived from older material and circulated in oral form. 
              if the shoe was on the other foot and I refused to accept what all scholars taken as given you would not hesitate to castigate my understanding for that.

              • He never answered any of my arguments but went on assenting that I had no answers. This guy is a philosopher and the sec outpost guys are thye best atheist thinkers I've seen and they still include narrow minded bigoted people who don't think. I don't include Lowder or Parsons in that but it definitely applies to Bowen.

              • Monday, March 14, 2016

                Belief, Rationalization, Manipulation


                We have some interesting comments that came in on past postings. In reaction to my statement on Notes on Realization of God's Reality, someone named "Atheist" says:

                said...Metarock: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of reality, not a technology.
                Atheist: Belief Is, therefore, a realization about the nature of fantasy, not a technology. Belief has nothing to do with reality or truth. In fact belief and truth are mutually exclusive.

                The problem with this is that it privileges doubt to the extent of re-writing the point of bleief. Belief becomes a dirty word tot he professional doubter. The fact of belief is that one does not believe something one thinks is false. Belief is obviously about truth. Of cousre this is not a guarantee that the particulars of one's beliefs are true, yet no one sets out to believe falsehood. Dawkamenatlists. like the fundies that they are, are literalistic and rigid slave thinkers who dread having to think for themselves, thus any hint that a held opinion is not a "fact" and is not guaranteed by the atheist fortress of facts (ala atheist ideology) but is merely "belief," must be held as falsehood and ridiculed to the text the very word "belief" is taken ass a dirty word and held to mean "rationalization." Belief is what one hold to be true, it' s synonymous with "conviction," that's a term atheists are not familiar with.

                I am thinking that this person is reacting to the idea that I stated, that proving things is a technology. Somehow this person sees this as an insult he/she has to insult belief back and though belief is some alien process that atheists don't involve themselves in. Unless one is illiterate it must be obvious to all that even atheists have beliefs. Strangely enough an atheist on CARM, who humbly calls himself "big thinker," who martians that he has no beliefs. Belief is such a dirty word to the Dawkies that he can't bring himself to admit that he has beliefs. He refused to answer my question "so you believe you have no beliefs?" That would entail the admission that what you think is true is a belief. Thus there are no people without beliefs. How is it possible that one thinks for oneself without believing things? This person obviously believes that belief is is about unreality, this person believes that atheism is about being realistic about reality these are beliefs. I wonder if most atheists even know the word reality. What they really mean is "what I want to be the case." If it could be proved that God is reality what would they do? They would then begin asserting that reality stinks and fantasy is true.

                Webster's Online:


                noun \bə-ˈlēf\

                Definition of BELIEF

                : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
                : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
                : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

                Examples of BELIEF

                1. There is growing belief that these policies will not succeed.
                2. He gets angry if anyone challenges his religious beliefs.
                3. We challenged his beliefs about religion.

                Origin of BELIEF

                Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
                First Known Use: 12th century

                Synonym Discussion of BELIEF

                belief, faith, credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer belief that I had caught all the errors>. faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof faith in God>. credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent credence by scientists>. credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof credit to the statement of a reputable witness>.
                Belief is placing confidence in a proposition." conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence " Belief is about the way one views reality not manipulating reality.

                Proving things is a from of manipulation. Why? Because it requries the re-organizing of bits of sense data in order to change the situation form appearance to demonstration. I didn't originally call it manipulation I called it "technology." Then I defined technology as manipulation. This commenter took this as an assault upon truth. It's actually just phenomenological awareness about our relationship to sense data in the formation of truth claims. Belief is a conviction of truth as the definition says it is not a pretense or a fantasy. Getting at truth requires re arranging the appearance of reality and thus its manipulation. This doesn't mean that stacking the manipulation to coincide with our desires is truth finding.

                Webster defines Technology:

                noun \tek-ˈnä-lə-jē\
                plural tech·nol·o·gies
                Definition of TECHNOLOGY
                a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge
                : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge
                : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor
                — tech·nol·o·gist \-jist\ noun
                See technology defined for English-language learners »
                Examples of TECHNOLOGY
                This doesn't tell us the use of the term in such elite venue as intellectual history in postmodern circles such as the writing of Michele Foucault. The word is used apart from gadgets. We can employ a technology in the way we think about things without any new inventions or scientific apparatus. That's the way I was using the term, not as an insult or an attack but with persimmon making known the fact that the way we think about "reality" in relation to what can be demonstrated as true is a technology and an application of knowledge in a varied way.

                In other words, belief is actually conviction that honestly understands truth or reality to be a certain way, while proof and demonstration are actually manipulating reality by arranging the way it is perceived, in order to produce a particular outcome.

                The same poster left another interesting comment, this was addressed to the post about atheists moving away from the big bang.
                Atheist said...I am an atheist. I do not depend on science for my atheism. In fact I disagree with science often when it looks too much like theism. Multi-universes, quantum mechanics and the Big Bang are a some examples.

                My atheism is based on truth and facts not science.

                "I disagree with science when it looks like theism." I assume then that he/she agrees with it when it looks like opinions he/she already holds. So at that rate science is not a teaching device that tells this person truth but is in fact the "big fortress of facts" that proves atheism and backs up her opinion. In other words in the Orwellian "atheist speak" truth is a lie and one's own desire to escape God is paramount and outweighs truth, scirnce is a propaganda tool that can only be useful when it backs the template of atheist ideology. Look at the two quotes back to back it's pretty obvious that's what being said. If science was as atheists cling to it and portray it in clash with Genesis or creationism it's supposed to be a tool that lays bear what is real and enables us to know the truth of the physical world. To allege that would be a belief. Belief is a dirty word, belief is fantasy. Yet it's also apparent that truth finding goes hand in hand with fantasy and in place of truth this atheist wants propaganda. Hence I only believe science when it tells me what I want to hear.

                "I don't believe scinece when it looks like theism."

                Is there a way to reason with such people? If the facts and the uncovering of reality to the extent that the umpire of reality says "this be true" is not good enough, but must be rejected when ever it strays from the ideology that enthralls this salve thinker then what could possible point to truth in discussion or argument or evidence? Can't we see this is the total betrayal of "free thought" that it obviously is? How long can people be suckered?

                We have to fear truth seeking and make conviction a dirty word becasue reality might be other than we wish?