Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 3)

[ScottONanski]

He knows kungfu!



[TRUCKEEDOG666]

Dr? What a joke.

[anakrinontes]

@TRUCKEEDOG666

What's the joke? I'm not sure.

[RonnieLyman]

I went to three different State schools and they all want to teach you "what to think." It' ridiculous.

[mathgeek37]

I think his criticism of university harassment policies is correct. I have wondered if such policies were written with the mindset that white men are the symbols of power and success in American society and we need to be taken down a few notches. Since that archetype is most prevalent in US history, am I right to believe that such policies were written the mindset that we are receiving our "just desserts"?

I have wondered that for years.

[destroyergmv]

ah, it seems we are more similiar than we both thought at first.

good comment.

[mathgeek37]

Okay, I see his point here...

But under which degrees does this policy fall? I certainly haven't found discrimination in the mathematics classroom or the physics classroom? What about chemistry? What about speech pathology? Human resource management? Has secular humanism taken over here as well? Or is it just in classes like history, philosophy, political science, religion and literature?

[destroyergmv]

jealousy is the creator of discrimination.

again, it is up to each of us to consider and respect the other.

i am sure you know, i am merely saying so for anyone else who reads. :D

[MRKetter81]

@mathgeek37 All subjects are loaded with implications no matter what they are.

[fiercegallantry]

Radical empiricism cannot verify the uniformity of nature; laws of logic; moral absolutes; or even the existence of an external world.

[fiercegallantry]

Sorry, not all questions are resolved through empirical methis. Your standard of "evidence" is absurd & illogical.

[cottreau]

Love the idea of humility as a counter to intellectual bullying. In fact, this is something that EVERYONE should listen to, not just people promoting a Christian viewpoint.

[Harpakhrad11]

Is the article he is reading available on the web?

[athiestfag]

Take that kisstheclowns! you just got knocked out kid! go back to your NES bitch, we're playin halo 3 on this side!

[BionicDance]

Wow...this guy is really afraid that christianity--only the single most followed faith IN THE ENTIRE WORLD--is in danger, huh?

This is what happens when your role model is a MARTYR. What a chowderhead. *rolls eyes skyward*

[a5dr3]

No, as a postmillenialist he thinks just the opposite, but anyone who isn't braindead understands that Christianity is uniquely ridiculed and deemed illegitimate among all other worldviews on college campuses. An appropriate warning in an introduction to a class preparing Christian students for undergrad school. Your obviously ignorant also of the hundreds of thousands of Christians that are put to death every year across the globe.

[BionicDance]

Yes, that's right, because members of various minorities aren't put to death all the time by xenophobic christians. *rolls eyes*

"Uniquely ridiculed"? ALL religions take it in the neck from reason and logic, not just christianity. And you make it sound like a hate crime to point out how wacko-jacko FAITH is.

Face it: YOU'RE NOT A MINORITY. Stop acting like victims, scared survivors of a witchhunt, huddled in some basement. Cuz that ain't the reality.

[JMcH]

You know what? Blacks weren't a minority in South Africa, yet they were oppressed for many, many years. It's not a matter of being a minority. It's a matter of what influence those "in power" have over people and society.

[BionicDance]

Which is actually what "majority" and "minority" mean in a socio-political sense; not numbers but influence. And right now the christians are in power in the US. Has that somehow escaped your notice?

[JMcH]

Yep. Move those goalposts, bud. Of course, you just damned your arguments because it's influence that I and Bahnsen are referring to. In the nation's colleges, the non-Christians are in power. That is actually provable, too, and has been proven.

[BionicDance]

It's influence I'M talking about, too. Right now, christians RUN this COUNTRY; if you think that colleges are about to smash that power-base, well, you're simply proving my point that you lot are paranoid; you WANT to be martyrs, like your fictional messiah, you WANT to be persecuted, whether you are or not.

[JMcH]

I'd like to know how Christians run this country when your almighty "separation of church and state" is constantly used to keep us in line with the wishes of secularists like yourself. Christians certainly are the majority, but if they cannot act upon their beliefs, then they are not in power. As I said, it's exactly like South Africa was.

[BionicDance]

When a person cannot be elected unless they at least FEIGN religious belief--which they can't; this point is made by Christopher Hitchens constantly, and he's not wrong--I'd say you lot are most definitely in power, even if it's coming from the bottom up...as it's SUPPOSED TO in the US.

And it's a damn good thing we HAVE the separation of church and state; this country is NOT meant to be an exclusive theocracy.

[JMcH]

lol! Okay, I'll give you that people who appear religious tend to me more electable, but they cannot act upon that religion in any way other than rhetorically once they assume office because of your almighty "separation of church and state." Honestly, if Christian really were in power, do you think that Ten Commandments monuments would be removed as often as they are? Would the faith of Christian students in public schools and colleges be trampled so often?

[BionicDance]

Faith in public schools and Ten Commandments monuments in government buildings are UNAMERICAN.

This country is SUPPOSED to have a secular government, because there is no other way for religion to be freely practiced by the citizens.

If you had your way, this would be an exclusively CHRISTIAN nation, not a place for ALL people, as it is meant to be.

[BionicDance]

Look, let me be clear on this issue: I don't support your beliefs, but I support your right to HAVE them. If someone were to enact laws that kept you from living your christian life, I'd actually come to your aid, because I believe in freedom. But faith-based initiatives preclude MY right to live my life as an atheist, and that's wrong for EXACTLY the same reason.

I may try to persuade you away from what I see as a false religion, but I won't EVER legally bar you from having it.

[kisstheclowns]

No, but maybe not. But when the people who shared your beliefs throughout time gain power, they murder and torture Christians en masse. Stalin, Hitler, Nero, Lenin, Pol Pot, the Shogun of japan in 1638. 180 million Christians in the 20th century alone were slaughtered....Now who are the one's who are oppressed?

[BionicDance]

And? I don't know how many times this point can be made by people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, but those people did what they did NOT as atheists, but for completely separate reasons not related to atheism.

And they don't share MY beliefs; there's more than one way and reason to be an atheist.

[kisstheclowns]

yes but all fruit comes from a seed. I mearly ask you to examine the root.

[BionicDance]

But you're asking me to examine what YOU BELIEVE the root is, without even presenting it for scrutiny. If you're right, and it's Jeebus or god...you have to prove it before I'll consider it. That's a very important step you seem inclined to leave out in favor of FAITH, which is highly inaccurate.

[fiercegallantry]

Stalinisn & Maoism are "completely unrelated to atheism"??? On what planet???

[BionicDance]

I didn't SAY 'completely unrelated to atheism', I said that they did what they did for completely separate REASONS from atheism.

I'm talking about their MOTIVATIONS, and they were NOT motivated by atheism, even IF they were atheists.

Do please try to read more critically, thankyouverymuchindeed.

[fiercegallantry]

A distinction without a difference.

Fascism, Communism, & Jacobinism were varieties of secular utopianism. Secularism was part & parcel of these ideologies.

Sorry. Sounds like special pleading to me.

[BionicDance]

It's not a distinction without a difference. That'd be like saying that The Simpsons and The X-Files were the same because they had being on FOX in common; they're different like night and day, and having one common element doesn't mean they were motivated by that common element.

After all, judaism and christianity both have wearing of hats in common; you gonna give hat-wearing credit for them?

YOU'RE looking for a scapegoat, and you want to use these specific evil men to condemn all atheists.

[fiercegallantry]

Epic fail.

You're trying to psycho-analyze me on the basis of 2 comments? 2 comments??? Nice.

I'm not trying to condemn atheists of *anything* other than dishonoring God.

However, *atheism* as a philosophy or set of philosphies can be shown to have certain social consequences. The tendency of atheism to produce secular utopian movements is one such consequence.

Ideas have consequences. The idea that men do not need to acknowledge God has tragic consequences.

[BionicDance]

It's the same concept; you're saying, "They were atheists? Well, look where THAT got us!" But you're not actually putting any evidence together to show that Stalin and Mao wouldn't have committed the same atrocities if they were religious. You're just ASSUMING atheism is the culprit.

...and you're full of shit. Plenty enough atrocities have been committed by the religious in the name of religion which shows just how stunningly full of shit you are.

[fiercegallantry]

How do you know what I'm assuming? For now, all I'm saying is: Please look at the patterns.

You want to blame "religion" for all the bad things that religious people have done. Fine. But you don't want to blame atheism for the much worse things that atheists have done in the throes of atheist philosophies. Not fair.

Grow up. Play fair. Please.

[BionicDance]

Tough shit; LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It doesn't come with rules or doctrine, it has no dogma, it's just a lack of a belief in the supernatural.

Religion, however, has very specific rules and expectations and dogma. That's the difference.

Nothing about atheism can influence anybody to do anything, but religion CAN because of its fundamental nature.

With Stalin and Mao, their atheism was INCIDENTAL to the atrocities they committed, but you assign it full credit. You're wrong.

[fiercegallantry]

You are guilty of special pleading.

You claim that the atheism of Stalin & Mao was incidental to their atrocities. Why? How so? I don't see how one can come to that conlusion.

You blame "religion" for all the bad things that religious people have done. To be consistent, you must blame secular philosophies for the terrible crimes done by folowers of secular philosophies.

Also, in one sense, there is no such thing as generic "religion." Christianity is not Mayan sun worship.

[BionicDance]

No. You're stunningly wrong.

Again, atheism comes with no doctrine, it's simply a lack of belief. It's like saying you don't eat chocolate; that's ALL THERE IS TO IT. Atheism comes with no instruction manual.

BUT RELIGION DOES. Religion has holy texts which are then used as excuses or justifications for atrocities.

Atrocities--even those done BY atheists--are never done BECAUSE OF atheism; the same cannot be said of religion.

But since you're trying to insist otherwise, SHOW EVIDENCE OF IT.

[fiercegallantry]

So, Marxism is not to blame for Marxist atrocities? Fascism is not to blame fascist atrocities? Jacobinism is not to blame for Jacobin atrocities?

Explain.

[BionicDance]

None of these were motivated BY atheism, they just CONTAINED atheism as PART of their philosophy. Yet you seem deteremined to point at 'em and say, "Atheism was even PERIPHERALLY involved? Well, there's your answer right there!"

It'd be like saying that the Abrahamic religions are to blame for THEIR atrocities because they were all developed in deserts. "Deserts were involved? There's your problem, my friend. Deserts are evil!"

I see WHY you're trying this reasoning, but you're VERY wrong.

[DetectiveTackett]

Gee, a group of people hold an ideology that (because of its atheistic precommitments) rejects traditional moralty.

These people ignore traditional norms against murder & brutality.

They commit lots of murder & brutality.

No mystery here.

[fiercegallantry]

So, you should disaggregate "religion" into meaningful categories.

Also, if you blame Christianity for the bad things done by Christians, you should praise Christianity for all the good things done by Christians & Christian societies.

Some things to be thankful for: Centuries of beautiful art, music, literature, and architecture; the abolition of slavery; modern science; modern medicine; Christian hospitals; modern constitutional government...

[BionicDance]

Now you're deflecting.

And STUNNINGLY full of shit; many of the things you've just tried to give christianity credit for are things it has ACTIVELY BLOCKED.

Why can't you just admit that religion has caused a lot of harm in this world and should probably start minding it's own FUCKING business? You know...be a personal, private thing instead of interfering in peoples' lives against their will?

[fiercegallantry]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

If you knew some real history instead of the coffeshop propaganda, well, you might be surprised. At the end of the day, the Christian West has accomplished more in science, medicine, technology, art, music, and literature than all the rest of the world.

Results matter.

[BionicDance]

Yes, that's right...my intensive studies into religious interference in progress is "coffeeshop propaganda", while your patently biased, pro-religion point of view is accurate and balanced.

Yeah, results matter...and religion has NOSTRIL-RAPED this world sideways. You lot had your chance; it's high time the rest of us took our planet back.

[fiercegallantry]

Calm down.

Relax.

Take a deep breath.

Now, please, tell me: What is your philsophy?

[BionicDance]

Irrelevant.

We're talking about history and the effect religion has had on it; don't try to make this personal.

[fiercegallantry]

No, we were not discussing the effects of religion on history. You were too busy shouting.

[BionicDance]

Whereas you're too busy whining how unfair it is that religion has to take the blame for the things done in its name while atheists can't be blamed for the purely political atrocities done by specific people in the name of power, who just HAPPENED to have atheist leanings.

[fiercegallantry]

BTW: I think that your response illustrates much of what Dr. Bahnsen has to say in regards to "the myth of neutrality."

I am biased. So are you. But I will admit my bias. Besides, my bias does not lead to slef-contradiction.

[BionicDance]

Hardly.

My bias has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this, and you're just trying to change the subject so that it's something other than your wacko-jacko beliefs that have no basis in reality, and the atrocities committed in its name, that's under the microscope.

[fiercegallantry]

My beliefs are well-founded in reality.

I want to know the epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical basis for your claims. Otherwise, the conversation is sorta stuck at the point of you screaming like a lunatic.

[BionicDance]

No...if you really think that your beliefs are well-founded in reality, than I'm screaming AT a lunatic.

Prove, using empirical evidence which can be replicated in a laboratory, that god exists, resurrection is possible, and that there are such places and heaven and hell. Remove faith from the equation and PROVE religion's RIDICULOUS claims that read like something out of J.R.R. Tolkien, or concede the argument.

[fiercegallantry]

Prove, using empirical evidence that can be replicated in a laboratory, that empirical evidence is the only basis for knowledge.

Sorry, radical empiricism is self-refuting. I do not accept the contradictory demands of a self-refuting philosophy.

Also, empirically prove the existence of numbers, love, beauty, ethical obligations, laws of logic, categories, etc.

And fire your paleontologist. He never replicates his finds.

[BionicDance]

Your entire response is nothing but equivocation. Empiricism is a way of VERIFYING knowledge, of ascertaining its veracity.

And you completely avoided the challenge, too, so I will take that as concession.

You are, as I've been saying, stunningly full of shit, and now your embarrassingly unsustainable position has been laid bare for all to see.

Congratulations.

[DetectiveTackett]

Truly ignorant.

Empricism is a theory of knowledge. (David HUme's philosophy, for example.) Empirical methods are means of acquiring information, but even basic observations require conceptual & theoretical interpretation.

[BionicDance]

But those interpretations can be subject to testing to determine their validity; faith cannot.

[DetectiveTackett]

But those interpretations rest on core assumptions that cannot be tested just because they are the basis of all testing. How is that different from faith?

[BionicDance]

The testing is there to strip away the core assumptions to get at the truth. That's the opposite of faith.

[DetectiveTackett]

But the testing itself relies on those core assumptions. Which means that you will be testing your core assumptions against your core assumptions.

How's that work, exactly?

[BionicDance]

Exactly which core assumptions do you mean? Because, frankly, the only core assumption that one has to make to empirically test something's validity is that given the same conditions the same effect will follow the same cause. That's the only assumption you have to make AT ALL.

So if you've got others, please, by all means, enlighten me.

[fiercegallantry]

Define "progress."

[JMcH]

As for your paranoia of "an exclusive theocracy," that just goes to prove your profound ignorance of Christians, what Jefferson meant by the separation of church and state and what our Constitution is about.

I bet you've called President Bush "Pastor Bush" at least once.

[BionicDance]

No, I stick with "Shrubya". Or "asshole". Either suits him. :P

[BionicDance]

And you're full of crap, anyway. How many times have we heard Shrubya enact "faith-based initiatives" during his reign of terror over this alleged land of the free and the home of the brave?

I'll tell you: FAR, FAR TOO OFTEN.

[JMcH]

lol! The faith-based initiatives are coming to get you, Barbara! They're coming for you, Barbara! Look! There comes one of them now!

[kisstheclowns]

So if a drunk driver crashes his car and kills people=All cars are bad???

[BionicDance]

Logic just bounces right off you, doesn't it? I'm arguing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, you chowderhead. *rolls eyes*