- John M Thank you Karen. Hitler carrying out "Gods will" has no relevance to what you believe. That was kind of what I was getting at in terms of irrelevance. Hitler is not relevant to this issue. Neither is MLK honestly.2 hours ago
Rhology John,
Why would anyone be bothered by the fact that Adolf Hitler had a false belief (that false belief being that his conduct was in accordance with the will of the Creator)?-
Rhology Pagans like Hitler have a lot of false beliefs, incidentally. http://
rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2007/ 10/hitler-christian.html2 hours ago 
John M You couldn't prove his actions weren't in accordance with the creator any more than he could prove your actions aren't in accordance with the creator. Thats because youre both using the same unaccounted for god concept to justify your beliefs.-
Rhology And if he can't prove it, then why isn't the Christians' complete disavowal of Hitler as a Christian completely valid?
- John M God, the way your religion describes him, cannot be demonstrated. Only asserted.
It's valid, but hypocritical, because youre doing the same thing as he is (claiming you know the will of a god that can't be demonstrated). -
Rhology \\God, the way your religion describes him, cannot be demonstrated. Only asserted. \\
As a matter of fact, this is completely wrong.
www.proofthatgodexists.org
\\It's valid, but hypocritical, because youre doing the same thing as he is (claiming you know the will of a god that can't be demonstrated).\\
I don't see how it's hypocritical. If both of us make statements that can't be verified (just for the sake of your argument), don't Christians get to define our own position and what it means to be a member of our group?
Can I say "I'm an atheist and I believe that there are millions of gods and that science is bunk"? Would that be consistent and rational? - John M I don't know if absolute truth exists ---> Absolutely true/false? I don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute. I wonder if the next question would be is not knowing whether you don't know if absolute truth exists absolute? Probably, but that would ruin the whole false dichotomy. Fun word game though.
-
Rhology \\I don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute.\\
Then you are not getting it, and that's sad.
Is it absolutely true that you don't know if not knowing if absolute truth exists is absolute?
Think hard. - John M I don't know if it's absolute that I don't know. I already said that. We can't account for absolutes with our current capabilities, and probably will never be able to. You can say they exist, but it's merely an assertion.
-
Rhology is it absolutely true that you don't know if it's absolute that you don't know?
is it absolutely true that we can't account for absolutes with our current capabilities?
Is it absolutely true that it's merely an assertion? -
- John M And thats the hole in your argument. You can't get anywhere unless you get me to concede that I know things absolutely. How can I verify whether or not what I know is absolute?
Fun game though. -
Rhology \\And thats the hole in your argument\\
Is that absolutely true?
If you don't, why did you say it?
\\You can't get anywhere unless you get me to concede that I know things absolutely\\
Is that absolutely true?
If you don't, why did you say it?
\\How can I verify whether or not what I know is absolute? \\
You can't. Unless Jesus is Lord, there is no way to do so. That's the point of the website, actually.
All these foolish things you keep saying - they are more and more demonstration of the utter absurdity of your worldview. - John M We can account for absolutes only through the unverified divinity of a man named Jesus from 2000 years ago. Got it.
Showing posts with label absurdity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label absurdity. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Absolutely not
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Just the opinions, ma'am, just the opinions
Recently the Jolly Nihilist has returned to blogging, and the blogosphere is better for it. He has also appeared here fairly often, and such engagements are profitable for us Christians, and of course we pray they are so for him as well.
During our fairly long history of discussion and debate, I have often accused him (most notably, here) of inconsistency with respect to the way he deals with questions of morality, of should and of ought. On the one hand, he'll say:
Then he'll turn around and say things like:
Throwing out a token "but it's not immoral" to cover his tracks, where his tracks clearly show a trail through Moral/Immoral-Land, is unconvincing. As I've said before, his inability to hold, even for one little blog comment, to his stated beliefs about morality is staggering. And again the throwaway "cannot speak of moral facts"; he knows exactly what he's trying to say.
And for the hundredth time, who cares what he thinks?
Let me propose extending his "not facts, just opinions, since there are no facts, but I still think what I have to say has value for others, else I wouldn't be saying these things, now would I?" passive-aggressive paradigm to other areas of life and knowledge.
So, since one can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts, I passionately hold and want to articulate that evolution is false and Intelligent Design is true. Now, according to the JN, there's no way to bring evidence for or against his assertions of what he finds morally praiseworthy or reprehensible. Similarly, because I say so, and because I passionately hold to this opinion, my viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's.
I passionately believe that the blue sky is a fuzzy blanket of happiness that God pulls over the despairing blackness of the night sky, and removes every evening. I also passionately hold that the stars are little pinpricks in the Dyson sphere-like canopy that envelopes the Earth, and God's glory, which is found in full force behind the canopy, shines through those pricks just a little bit, in order to put happy smiles on the faces of children throughout the world.
I passionately hold that mixing common household ingredients together will produce gold. (Next time, I vow to use just a little more Pine-Sol!) Last time, I mixed baking soda, vinegar, and dish soap. Even though the resulting sludge did not resemble gold as I usually experience it, that's OK b/c I know that what I passionately hold is worth expressing, and so it has value for myself and others. Hmm, where's the nearest pawn shop?
I passionately hold that since humans share a great deal of genetic code in common with broccoli, I can treat humans just like I treat broccoli. That is, I decapitate broccoli and eat it in salad. So...
I passionately hold that the President ordering the US Mint to print $3 billion in non-sequential $20 bills and giving them all to me will drastically improve the US economy. Drastically.
Remember another thing here - a very valid criticism I often level against atheists like the JN is that they frequently commit Hume's naturalistic fallacy and confuse IS statements with OUGHT statements. To wit - just because (for the sake of argument) gratuitous suffering IS/EXISTS gives us no information about any obligation, no directive as far as how we ought to respond to that suffering. Do we imprison the rapist, or do we join him in raping his victims? Without some external paradigm to provide moral direction to us, the bare fact of "this man is forcing these girls to have sex with him and they don't want to" leads neither to "I ought to stop him" nor "I ought to help him".
Thus, only IS statements exist. (Thus, atheism is the ultimate "Meh".) What else are IS statements? Everything I just said about science, evolution, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, and economics! Take the Jolly Nihilist's contention a little further than he has apparently thought it through and you arrive at a fantasyland where reality is limited only by your imagination, boys and girls!
During our fairly long history of discussion and debate, I have often accused him (most notably, here) of inconsistency with respect to the way he deals with questions of morality, of should and of ought. On the one hand, he'll say:
Which is why my opinions are not facts, nor do I pretend they are or otherwise mask them as such. (source)
One can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts. (source)
Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty. (source)
Then he'll turn around and say things like:
...a charlatan associated therewith vomited up nonsense about homosexuals living in sin and just begging to be thrown into the fire pit of hell (a place, incidentally, which I deconstruct in my own latest blog post). The individuals upon whom the vomit was spewed. (source)
...mindless theological inculcation...sexual-orientation-modification experiments...fire pit of eternal torture and savagery. What beneficence...who would be harming nobody, bothering nobody, making miserable nobody...To prostrate oneself before such a pristine conception of hideousness… I dunno… I find it sad...Again, though I cannot speak of moral facts or objective right and wrong, this doctrine is positively noxious and almost staggering in its inhumane cruelty. (source)
Throwing out a token "but it's not immoral" to cover his tracks, where his tracks clearly show a trail through Moral/Immoral-Land, is unconvincing. As I've said before, his inability to hold, even for one little blog comment, to his stated beliefs about morality is staggering. And again the throwaway "cannot speak of moral facts"; he knows exactly what he's trying to say.
And for the hundredth time, who cares what he thinks?
Let me propose extending his "not facts, just opinions, since there are no facts, but I still think what I have to say has value for others, else I wouldn't be saying these things, now would I?" passive-aggressive paradigm to other areas of life and knowledge.
So, since one can passionately hold, and articulate, opinions without believing them necessarily to be facts, I passionately hold and want to articulate that evolution is false and Intelligent Design is true. Now, according to the JN, there's no way to bring evidence for or against his assertions of what he finds morally praiseworthy or reprehensible. Similarly, because I say so, and because I passionately hold to this opinion, my viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's.
I passionately believe that the blue sky is a fuzzy blanket of happiness that God pulls over the despairing blackness of the night sky, and removes every evening. I also passionately hold that the stars are little pinpricks in the Dyson sphere-like canopy that envelopes the Earth, and God's glory, which is found in full force behind the canopy, shines through those pricks just a little bit, in order to put happy smiles on the faces of children throughout the world.
I passionately hold that mixing common household ingredients together will produce gold. (Next time, I vow to use just a little more Pine-Sol!) Last time, I mixed baking soda, vinegar, and dish soap. Even though the resulting sludge did not resemble gold as I usually experience it, that's OK b/c I know that what I passionately hold is worth expressing, and so it has value for myself and others. Hmm, where's the nearest pawn shop?
I passionately hold that since humans share a great deal of genetic code in common with broccoli, I can treat humans just like I treat broccoli. That is, I decapitate broccoli and eat it in salad. So...
I passionately hold that the President ordering the US Mint to print $3 billion in non-sequential $20 bills and giving them all to me will drastically improve the US economy. Drastically.
Remember another thing here - a very valid criticism I often level against atheists like the JN is that they frequently commit Hume's naturalistic fallacy and confuse IS statements with OUGHT statements. To wit - just because (for the sake of argument) gratuitous suffering IS/EXISTS gives us no information about any obligation, no directive as far as how we ought to respond to that suffering. Do we imprison the rapist, or do we join him in raping his victims? Without some external paradigm to provide moral direction to us, the bare fact of "this man is forcing these girls to have sex with him and they don't want to" leads neither to "I ought to stop him" nor "I ought to help him".
Thus, only IS statements exist. (Thus, atheism is the ultimate "Meh".) What else are IS statements? Everything I just said about science, evolution, chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics, and economics! Take the Jolly Nihilist's contention a little further than he has apparently thought it through and you arrive at a fantasyland where reality is limited only by your imagination, boys and girls!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)