Greg Bahnsen - The Myth of Neutrality (part 2)

[22rectify]

Broken sentences and such.

[22rectify]

e some of the grammar is on here.

[22rectify]

It's amazing how inaccurat

[aricandisgood]

Wow does anyone really understand what presuppositionalism is? All arguments are circular, some are narrowly circular and others broadly circular.

Bahnsen was trying to impress on us that NO ONE is neutral, especially not the unbeliever. The man was a behemoth, and atheists were terrified of him.

[watermelonygoodness]

So what he's saying is you should know how to argue something you know nothing about.  Well you'll never get anywhere against someone who is informed if you are uninformed.

[MRKetter81]

Depends on the information, and it's reliablity. You are oversimplifying what is being said and as a result missing the point.

[MRKetter81]

Hell even psychology and sociology work on the idea of built up neurological structures over time like objects in motion that create inertia.

I figure being ignorant in the functioning of the brain while approaching epistemology (the study of knowledge and acquisition there of) is just plain underminding the truth.

Now you can argue with the facts. Yet I find it funny how so many atheists love to undermind the very evidence they always point to.

[destroyergmv]

when i speak with conviction...of how man would wrong another in such ways, of the flesh...

my heart tells me i am righteous, and i feel empowered...beyond anything i've ever felt...it is quite scary.

and when i brought a knife into the church when i was a small boy. the whole church was the same way with me, when i was wrong.

i was saw out of the town eventually.

people want to be safe, and they deserve to be. i understood that later in life, after i could comprehend my selfishness.

[destroyergmv]

technological*

[destroyergmv]

the truth, is the greatest of all media devices, techonological or not.

[zakiechan]

Geeze, so much paranoia in this lecture!

[destroyergmv]

look around you, i'm paranoid too...humans forget the rest of us are humans ALL the time.

[zakiechan]

No, I mean that he has this idea that everyone at college is out to get the Christians, that every discipline in existence is just trying to destroy Christianity, and convert everyone to atheists.

It just seems like a persecution complex to me.

[destroyergmv]

understood...he does speak with much conviction, as i do.

perhaps he is afraid the world will end too.

it sure looks that way when i look around, my friend. ^^

[destroyergmv]

i am athiest, and i can see plenty of meritable content within his words,

i accept people for who they are, what they say is their right...

whether we listeners deem he is right or wrong, is an opinion, and knowing that alone...gives him the right to speak his own mind...and bring forth his own opinion.

:)

[mathgeek37]

Honestly, who tells Christians to set aside their preconceptions in a debate about worldviews? I have never told a Christian to set aside anything. If anything, the Christian worldview is a set of base assumptions that use tools like scientific method, classical logic and mathematics to edify and maybe deconstruct their worldview. Maybe my humanities professors could have said that but I don't distinctly remember it happening.

[MRKetter81]

"Honestly, who tells Christians to set aside their preconceptions in a debate about worldviews?"

You do so when you talk about objective thinking torwards scientific approach, as they undermine views based on epistemology.

People coninually over and over again repeating the mantra "be neutral" when they aren't and never have been. When ever you ask someone to be "open minded" you're imposing a double-standard.

The colleges on a day to day basis claim to be "neutral"; they aren't.

[mathgeek37]

I have watched all the videos except for most of 4 and all of 5.

I disagree with you completely. Nobody can be neutral at all, no matter how hard you or I try to be. You always bring bias into the event no matter what.

I must be a counterexample to the "open-minded" business because I strive to know and learn the other side of the issue. I am first and foremost an existentialist for several reasons that can't be dictated here. You are allowed to espouse your POV and critique mine.

[MRKetter81]

Well I can't see any justification for existentialism, but regardless of that how can you as a existentialist not believe in the "open-minded" theory. When essentially that's the primary branch of epistemology where the "open-mind" theory derives.

Existentialist live on the basis that they can only trust them selves, because knowledge (suposively) comes from within. Which is also completely contrary to presupposionialism; where we are cup to be filled by one sorce or another.

[mathgeek37]

So basically Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky were wrong, then? Dostoevsky's maxim: "Without God, everything is permitted."

Sir, reason itself fails at some point and certain assumptions become axiomatic. You only learn about God from other people, and you and I likely were instructed as children to believe in the God of the Bible. We never had the chance as adults to reasons toward's God existence without the bias already being there. And yet, godless children become god-fearing adults.

[mathgeek37]

This is my main bone with presuppositionalism is that if the belief is truly consistent, then it must be stated to children early on and repeated then throughout their younger years that God is responsible for all knowledge. What adult or teenager makes that connection at all? I never made that connection until I took philosophy in college.

This is my personal bias speaking, but do you think my description of humanity in this regard is wrong?

[MRKetter81]

"This is my personal bias speaking, but do you think my description of humanity in this regard is wrong?"

You said "What adult or teenager makes that connection at all?".. what connection? That logic is apart of God's nature?

"In the beginning was the logic and the logic was with God" or Logos to be more accurate. Also paul said "We live and breath with in His being".

[mathgeek37]

I still disagree with you. Humans are not programmed to automatically know who God is, let alone know where knowledge is derived from. How many average people can say honestly they know where knowledge derived from? Nobody in main experience knows that for sure.

Hence, presuppositionalism is flawed because no human inherently knows that. Like math, God must be taught about at a young age and can only be understood even tacitly as one matures intellectually.

[MRKetter81]

I never said humans have been programmed to know God.. in fact they've been cut off from God since the fall of adam as you are well aware of. However that doesn't make creation any different in that it will always reflect His nature.

I can easily say that knowledge derives from experience, and being that we live and breath experiencing God on a day to day basis (even though very much unaware having been cut off due to sin) doesn't make it any less the case.

[MRKetter81]

"And yet, godless children become god-fearing adults"

Because dealing with transcendentals in axioms is fallacious. Axioms aren't suposed to contradict them selves. The laws of logic very clearly state not to enter in to circular reasoning as such presupposes it self. (In otherwords the whole explination is NONE at all)

Logic is not an axiom but a transcendental. If it were an axiom it would make reasoning it self null, begging the question "Why assert logic?".

[mathgeek37]

I disagree again. Mathematical principles are derived via relating sets of elements to symbols that represent an amount. Same goes with logic I think, the laws of logic were developed via the senses and by the simple fact that opposites exist.

This neither proves or disproves a God, but it renders the transcendental part of logic moot.

Furthermore, history dictates other classical systems of logic that exist in non-Judeo-Christian cultures.

Presuppositionalism is a preference game.

[MRKetter81]

"I disagree again. Mathematical principles are derived via relating sets of elements to symbols that represent an amount."

Elements and representations of what? Logic? Then account for such use being that they have no consistency outside of induction. Yet induction is just assumed and never explained because of it's transcendental nature.

The brain fuctions that way. Knowledge is accumulated from experience; experience that transcends the capibility of the brain.

[MRKetter81]

Presuppositionalism is a epistemological approach.. the only one mind you that takes in to full account of bias.

Wother you're convinced of the myth of neutruallity or not.. physics as a whole back up presuppositionalism completely.

Electrons and atoms react to one another as a matter of fuction.

[mathgeek37]

Okay, if every "Christian" is supposed to be intellectually ready to defend the faith, then why are so many people biblically illiterate? Furthermore, in the rather homogenous culture of the USA, how many people are really going to get into serious debates about God and Christianity outside of say YouTube or the classroom?

[Entropy56]

Greg Bahnsen promoting R rated movies. LOL! So he sits at the seat of scoffers in violation of Psalms 1 and as a leader influences his students to patronize Hollywood. No wonder the church is epic failure.

[sirjames45]

The movie he quoted from was rated "R" because of violence. Violence is not always wrong, and if you just showed the things that went on around Jesus in his life, the rating system would rate it NC-17. The rating system is NOT from the Bible, so acting like an R rated movie is not for Christians is more than a bit legalistic and simplistic.

[Twelvish]

theonomy LOL

[cottreau]

Yeah - I bought "Pushing the Antithesis" which quotes a lot from two of Bahnsen's other books "Van Til's Apologetics" and "Always Ready". I understand the points quite well now, although I don't agree with their opinions. :)

[cottreau]

While I agree with Dr. Bahnsen that no one is really neutral, even if they say they are, I believe that neutrality is besides the point, and a side topic at best.

What it is really about is following the evidence where it leads, and not ignoring evidence if there is a theological reason to do so, whether you be Christian or atheist.

This is important for getting to the truth and without this, you will be dogmatic even if trying not to be.

Dr. Bahnsen seems to not be interested in truth.

[apparrattus]

You raise a good point, although I would contend that, at least from other of Dr. Bahnsen's talks/writings, evidence itself is contingent upon a set of abstract assumptions. I don't think he ignores evidence as such, but instead appeals to how anyone can make sense of the evidence at all. His talk on neutrality merely sets up his thinking for how he approaches apologetics. And yes, I do think there is an unesseary homophobic streak in him.

[cottreau]

Thanks for your reply. I know that Dr. Bahnsen is an advocate of the TAG (Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God), which argues some of the things that you have mentioned here (i.e. how do you make sense of the evidence at all? - TAG says that without God, you can't even interpret it).

The thing is, if you start with an assumption that the bible is 100% correct, why will this lead to better understanding of anything?

That's my question.

[apparrattus]

Well, as a person that is just really coming to a complete understanding of TAG myself, I'm not sure I could satisfactorily answer that question. TAG for shows that there is a God at the very least. But I've read where Bahnsen arugues for the internal consistancy of the Christian worldview, but have never seen his examples of that. I personally have more issues with the interpreation of the bible, and not really with "is there a God." So I think maybe we have similar questions.

[cottreau]

You can find Dr. Bahnsen's philosophy and theology in the book "pushing the antithesis", which you can find on Amazon. After seeing these lectures, I'm tempted to buy it.

I have no actually found a good overview of the TAG anywhere on-line, although there are a lot of pages that talk about it without giving the actual TAG itself.

[apparrattus]

I'll have to look at that book. I have one of his books "Always Ready" which is basically these lectures in an organized, instructional book. But again, it really only answers as much as these lectures, which I already understand. Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.

[NapoleonReece]

you might want to check out Gordon Clark's Presuppositional arguments.

[a5dr3]

Get Bahnsens Van Til book. Bahnsen covers all the points your bringing up. (He also does in a lot of other lectures I've seen as well.)

[bs2174]

look at freebook com

[NapoleonReece]

check out Gordon H. Clark and John W. Robbins.

[a5dr3]

Get Bahnsens Van Til book. Bahnsen covers all the points your bringing up. (He also does in a lot of other lectures I've seen as well.)

[CAndiron]

Not bad for a post millennial, theonomic, paedobaptist.

[TribulationST]

lol imo he got 1 out of 3 correct

[ILiveInMyParadise]

Sounds like he's got better than 3 of 3 right! Too bad he's gone.

[sfehrenbach]

"Bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of God"...Kinda screams "Don't think for yourself" doesn't it?

[a5dr3]

Yeah dude,totally,really goin against the societal grain on that one. Too bad if I followed your instructions I wouldn't be thinking for myself anymore. But thats ok, I guess on your worldview no one really thinks anyway. Thoughts r simply complex materialistic cause and effect stimulated chemical reactions in the brains grey matter which is itself wholly a product of chance antecedent factors. One random set of legos compelled mysteriously to try and interpret all the other random sets

[laurencecooper]

No it doesn't. With respect, your comment betrays a misunderstanding of the Pauline text. He's talking about demolishing spiritual mind blocks/mind sets that oppose the truth of the gospel. As a former secular humanist materialist - those convictions alone (s, h, m) illustrate a few of the mind sets that oppose the gospel. I had to accept that not all Christain were unthinking sheep before I became a Christian; that was another proud thought "exalted against the knowledge of God."

[braverheartedsam]

That's not what he's saying at all. Allowing God into your thoughts is not saying that you cannot think for yourself, but rather directing your thoughts on how you can better serve him. I don't know if you're a believer or not, but I don't think that any of us SHOULD be thinking for ourselves anyway..but what we can do each day to glorify God, unselfishly, and thank him for forgiving us and giving us a chance at Heaven.

[athiestfag]

I've been reading these threads and bionicdance is fighting the good fight, you go you goth lez you! All you Christians need to listen to this gay girl. she sees what you can't. wake up and kiss the clowns!

[BionicDance]

I KNEW I couldn't be as alone here as I felt! Good to know you! :)

[babystinky]

The truth is Greg Bahnsen and that approach has given a lot of trouble to Atheists, in fact I believe it was Michael Martin, noted Atheist Philosopher to give the first rebuttal, actually Martin elected not to debate Bahnsen. Who knows why. But Bahnsen is a very worth mind for sure.

[a5dr3]

About two weeks before the debate Martin canceled because he said he didnt want CMF to record and distribute the debate -though he was fully aware of the terms months before. My theory is that when Martin started preparing and researching he discovered presuppositional apologetics and Greg "Bite the Bullet" Bahnsen and knew he didn't stand a chance. That's roughly Bahnsens opinion as well. Martin still writes articles about it trying to save face.

[babystinky]

Granted, and I am not here to defend Martin at all. But I am sure Bahnsen respected him because he is a top notch scholar. But I agree with you, Bahnsen was a bit to strong.

[kisstheclowns]

what a badass!

[BionicDance]

I think you mean "dumbass". ;)

[kisstheclowns]

Not everyone can have your supreme intelect. I guess we all just have to do the best we can. You mock what you don't understand BionicDunce. I am sorry there are no Micheal Bay style explosions, or some dog talking or whatever it is that dull boys find "awsome." This is meant to be educational not entertaining.

[BionicDance]

Wow. Just...wow.

A) I hate Michael Bay

B) Talking dog? WTF, mate?

C) Not a boy

D) Who said I thought this was entertainment?

E) Boy, do I EVER understand this crap. Why do you think I REJECT it? The only part I DON'T get is how ignorance (which is what religious faith actually IS) is supposed to be a VIRTUE. Apparently your god wants us to be stupid, rather than KNOW things. *snort*

[kisstheclowns]

He mentions 1st Peter as a command for Christians to NOT be ignorant. What are talking about? The funny thing, you can't know ANYTHING when you have a godless world view. If we are matter in motion, then your very thoughts are meaningless by products of molecules. This renders any sort of objectivity impossible. Just one set of legos toying with another set of legos.

[BionicDance]

Religious faith is ignorance, by definition. Faith is BELIEF WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE. Faith is belief without PROOF.

What makes you think we need MAGIC--for that is what the supernatural is, and god is a supernatural being, if such a creature exists as described in most holy books--is required for matter to achieve sentience? Simply because you can't conceive of how it could be otherwise? TA DAAA! That's ignorance! ;)

[ephestian]

no it doesn't :)

[rayabe]

this sucks

[BionicDance]

It sucks and blows at the same time...which is kinna like god making a rock so heavy that he can lift it. ;)

[Westopherson]

wow, bionicdance, you really show a lot of hate on this page!

[BionicDance]

It's not HATE, it's CONTEMPT. There's a difference. :P

[JMcH]

Oh, okay. So I can have contempt for gays (I actually don't) and that would be okay with you. Thanks.

[BionicDance]

I never said that'd be okay with me. No, it's okay to have contempt for credulous fools who believe without empirical evidence; that's just delusional. Homosexuality has actual scientific evidence to back up its existence outside of the mind.

[JMcH]

Okay. So holding double-standards is okay. Thanks again.

[BionicDance]

Explain to me how this is a double standard. Show your work. *rolls eyes*

[JMcH]

Religion and sexual preference are both protected by the law with no regard to any "scientific evidence." Perhaps you think religion shouldn't be protected? I mean, in this country, you can have contempt for religion - particularly Christianity (and Christians) - and there are no consequences. Say you have contempt for homosexuality, however, and you'd better not show your face in public ever again. That's the way our secular-dominated society works today.

[BionicDance]

Religion should be PROTECTED, yes. Like I said elsewhere in this series, I'd defend the right of a religion to be practiced myself, even as a non-believer. I may try to convince you your beliefs are wrong, even stupid and hokey, but I'd never make HAVING them illegal.

By contrast, christians would LOVE to pass laws to make us all BEHAVE like christians, whether we believe or not. Nice double standard THERE, mate.

[JMcH]

lol! Nice straw man. No, actually, Christians wouldn't love to pass laws to make everyone behave like Christians because we understand that forced outward behavior is not how people become saved. No double standard. Just you burning a straw man.

You have a lot of delusions about what Christians are really like, don't you?

[BionicDance]

No, as a lesbian and a goth, I have a lot of EXPERIENCE with what christians are really like, thankyouverymuchindeed.

If christians don't love passing laws that make everyone behave like christians, explain laws against abortion and gay marriage. Explain faith-based initiatives. There's no strawman here; I'm speaking from experience.

[kisstheclowns]

Marrage is a religious institution. The people that started passing laws were the humanists, not the Christians. We don't like shoving shit down throats like the humanists, because God commands us not to. As far as abortion goes....Its a human, so he/she has rights. Please save me the pro-death rhetoric here, because at no point is the fetus ever not human.

[kisstheclowns]

further more, I don't know why you being a lesbian or a goth has anything to do with anything. So you like the color black and enjoy songs with silly lyrics....big deal, I liked Bauhaus and Tones on Tail as much as the next guy. Just because you live an "alternative" life style doesn't mean Christians hate you. It would be sinful on our part. P.S. Soft Cell was probably my fave Goth band.

[BionicDance]

It has to do with having been mistreated at the hands of your so-called holy people. Apparently forgiveness and loving your fellow man is something that only JESUS had to do. *rolls eyes*

[jblackpost]

Loving your fellow man is seperate from loving the errors my fellow men make. And forgiveness is reserved for those who repent. So, repent of your sins, throw off your rebellion to Christ, and be welcomed into his forgiveness. Don't focus on what Christians do or don't do. My forgiveness is meaningless. His is everything. Seek it.

[BionicDance]

Prove there's a god first; I've never met the guy nor seen anything objective to make me convinced that such a being exists.

I've seen more evidence of UFOs than I have of god, but not enough to make me convinced that extraterrestrials have visited this planet; you're going to have to do better than that if you want me to believe your claims.

[BionicDance]

Marriage is NOT a religious institution. There has been marriage in human society for MILLENIA, no religion required. It's only RECENTLY that christians have tried to co-opt the idea, to claim they INVENTED marriage.

[jblackpost]

Chrisitans don't claim they invented marriage. The claim is that God invented marriage- God who created the entire human race in the beginning- God who created all things and defines all things and who can therefore regulate all things as he sees fit. This is like claiming that Newton invented gravity. No, gravity's been around since the beginning; Newton is simply telling you about it's inherent characteristics.

[BionicDance]

But you have to prove your god even EXISTS before you can claim your god invented marriage, something no one here has even ATTEMPTED to do yet; so far, every last one of you has simply advised that god's existence has to be taken for granted.

Until and unless you can do that, the more probable scenario is that marriage is a human invention, and therefore should be open to anyone, gay or straight.

[jblackpost]

In a simiar way, Chrisitians are simply informing society about a very real set of prescriptions that marriage has whether you acknowledge them or not, and which a society ignores at their own peril. Marriage is absolutely a God-centered institution in the exact same way that an automobile is a gas-powered machine.

[jblackpost]

Sure, you can try to put something else in the tank to make it run, and who knows- it might even run for a bit. But eventually the machine will falter badly to the detriment of its occupants, because the creator's original design and regulations were not taken into account.

[BionicDance]

Again, you insist that god's existence be taken for granted, without ever providing evidence that anybody can check, that can be objectively observed to be the same for all parties.

It doesn't work that way; empirical proof must be given for your claims to have any weight.

[jblackpost]

God's existence must be taken for granted or one's thought degenerates into arbitrary assertions as your has. It is a complete fallacy that all existence claims are proven empirically. The existence of the laws of logic, for example, can not be proven empiriclly, but must be presupposed to provide any precondition of intelligibility. You have still not accounted for the foundation of your domatic assertions.

[BionicDance]

Logic is a thought process, not a being or a physical object; you are comparing apples to oranges. Again. *rolls eyes*

[jblackpost]

exactly- logic isn't a material object that can be empirically verified. So, you've now conceded my 1st point which is all existence claims are not proven in the same way. We really need to get this, before we can proceed any further. Otherwise we will have no foundation for logic itself which is also immaterial and prescriptive. do you understand so far?

[BionicDance]

No, I haven't proved your boneheaded sophistry, you half-wit! You're trying to apply empiricism--which deals with the physical world and the existence of people, places, and things, and god is at least two of those--to intangibles! You clearly don't understand empiricism AT ALL.

[jblackpost]

again, you seem not to grasp the nature of philosophy which has been explained countless times to you by several people. And now you're degenerating into insults. Ok, let's try again and take it slow. Do you believe that all existence claims are proven empirically?

[BionicDance]

That's because I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY, you dim-bulb! Sweet zombie jesus, will you EVER stop trying to talk in circles with your failed logic and just ANSWER A SIMPLE FUCKING QUESTION???

[jblackpost]

The statement "all existence claims must be empirically verified" is a philosophical assertion. You are, in fact, talking philosophy. So we need to proceed along those lines.  My questio was (yes or no): Do you believe that all existence claims are proven empirically? please respond.

[BionicDance]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're trying to draw a parallel between something that manifests itself on the physical plane--as god reportedly has acording to your bible--with things like thoughts or ideas; this is a disingenuous argument, and you're trying like HELL to lay a trap for me...and I'm not going to just willingly walk into it. Either start arguing honestly, or shut up.

[jblackpost]

God is an immaterial person. He can, in his omnipotence, materially manifest himself, but his nature is immaterial and self-existent from his creation. I'd love to argue honestly, but you won't get the ball rolling! Please answer the question: Do you believe that all existence claims are proven empirically?

[BionicDance]

In other words, you have completely abdicated the need and ability to prove that there is a god, rather neatly making proof of god impossible. Thus, the only possible way for a person to believe there is a god is through faith, not evidence.

Frankly, that just means you have no way of knowing whether or not god was just MADE UP, and you, yourself, duped. Well done. I've proved my point. Thank you.

[jblackpost]

Sigh. This is growing tedious for everyone here. Please answer the question, if you are so confident in your position and your ability to debate. Do you believe that all existence claims are proven empirically?

[BionicDance]

No. Your question is a logic trap, along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" It's disingenuous, and I'm not inclined to play along with your sophistry.

Plus, you've been refusing to answer my own questions; why should I answer yours?

[jblackpost]

It's not a logic trap. (1) You have asserted, "any proof of God must be empirical." (2) I say "there are other methods beyond empiricism to prove existence claims." (3) I then ask, "do you believe all existence claims are proven empirically? Because I say no" (4) you refuse to answer and call names. Just answer.

[BionicDance]

No, I'm not answering because any honest answer I give is going to be taken out of context. I can see EXACTLY where you'll go with it, and you'll be wrong to do so. It's a logical trap, as I've been saying, and I'm not about to play along.

[kisstheclowns]

when debating, if you cannot answer a yes or no question, that is usually a sign of surrender......unless of course, you took a bite of a sandwhich or something and have to chew before answering. I think the question was pretty straight forward. Its not a trap, he is just letting snake head of youre shakey world view devour it's own tail.

[BionicDance]

Yes/no questions are often very loaded questions; anyone who just tosses off a simple yes or no answer opens themselves up to misinterpretation rather quickly, which is why I'm more than hesitant to answer any of them.

[JMcH]

Laws against abortion are for protecting human life, not about controlling people's behavior. Laws against gay marriage don't stop people from being gay. Faith-based initiatives are about neutrally supporting a major part of society.

I could speak from experience, too, and tell you how based on it, atheists want to classify any and all religious people as mentally ill. Would that be fair?

[BionicDance]

They're about religious dogma that declares that a fetus is--no, not HUMAN--but a PERSON, from the very moment of conception. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that--there's plenty that suggests otherwise--and that all people should be forced to behave as if they held this ENTIRELY RELIGIOUS BELIEF, regardless of their own beliefs. That's religious thought control.

[jblackpost]

I'd like to hear you state when and how personhood is acheived and how it is scientifically measurable as distinct from human life. Because human life is measurable from conception. So where does "personhood" come from? Also, Banning abortion is not "thought control" it is "killing control"; you are perfectly free to fantasize about killing babies in your own private thoughts.

[BionicDance]

Science can measure brainwave patterns; the brainwaves of a fully conscious, self-aware human being are very different from a comatose or brain-dead human being.

A fetus generates different brain waves at different stages of development, and it isn't until the third trimester that sentience-level brain wave patterns emerge. That's a pretty reasonable time to assume personhood begins.

[jblackpost]

Silly thinking. Who said that was the definition of person-hood? Are people with less brain activity less of a person? You still need to provide a behavioral mandate to back up your dogmatic imperatives. Why not kill a person no matter what his brain patterns? And the selection of brain patterns is arbitrary. You might just as well selected the circulatory system.

[BionicDance]

Who said that was the definition of personhood? Gee, let me think...so the brainwaves of a fetus in the early stages is closer to the brainwaves of someone who is brain-DEAD than to someone who is fully sentient and aware, more stimulus-response than actual THOUGHT. Without thought there can be no personality, and without personality there is no person. Ta daaaa!

[kisstheclowns]

you heard it here firt folks!!!!!! I guess new borns aren't human either. What you are postulating here is that some how awarness defines human life. So If i were asleep, I guess you could kill me too!!!

[BionicDance]

Of course newborns are people; in the third trimester of pregnancy, long before birth, the persona begins to develop as higher brain functions begin to activate. I said as much earlier, but you're too busy trying to find villainy in what I'm saying to listen.

[kisstheclowns]

I am just trying to figure out the "meat and bones" of this bizare world view that says a specific species (the human) can exists only when it is fully concious and aware of itself. So if I am in a coma, I am equal to a quarter pounder with cheese.

You are RRREEEEAAAALLLLLYY goth!!!

[BionicDance]

You seem to think that genetics is everything, that a slab of meat with human genes cannot HELP but be a PERSON...apparently the mind--which is inextricably tied to the brain--makes no difference whatsoever to you.

[kisstheclowns]

again, where is your emperical proof that a person is a superego. Have you seen a super ego? Can you taste one or hear one? Well then it must not exist....right?

[BionicDance]

I already explained. Certain brainwaves have been scientifically proved to be linked to consciousness and self-awareness, to memory and higher brain functions. Without those, there can be no thought, no sense of self, no personality...no PERSON.

Deal with it, because right now you're being a complete ignoramus and acting like it's a virtue. *rolls eyes*

[kisstheclowns]

so because certain brain waves are linked to consciousness, you have empirically observed without doubt the that is the basis for human existance. Look, I know that you have been thrown a few curve balls, but neither can I have an intelligent debate with a Greek (i don't speak greek) nor can I converse with someone who can't see the forrest through the trees.

[BionicDance]

Nor can I converse with an ignoramus who thinks that a fictional character out of a fairy tale that got taken WAY too seriously by primitive and superstitious people THOUSANDS of years ago trumps modern science.

[xychr0]

BD:

If there is no Creator, and your brainwaves are simply a product of bioelectricity generated and maintained by neurons - that you yourself who claim to be an individual are simply temporarily arranged dirt, then why do you trust your own beliefs, and why should anyone listen to what you say?

[xychr0]

On the other hand, if you are as the Bible says, a child of God, a piece of him, a product of his Creation, special and holy, then I, and everyone else, has every reason to respect you as an individual and treat your viewpoints as valid.

God loves you. That's why you're alive.

Peace.

[BionicDance]

That's the thing, though: I have exactly ZERO reason to trust the Bible. By all accounts, it was written by human hands, and I have never seen nor met the god it talks about in any way; what reason do I have to believe in such a magical creator? In fact, REASON is exactly what I'm using when I say I DON'T believe, because I have no evidence to back up the Bible's claims, and it doesn't get a free pass on the Belief Scale just because it's the bible.

[xychr0]

So you believe in reason? Where is reason? Can you tell me what it smells like, tastes like, or looks like?

[BionicDance]

I believe in EMPLOYING reason; it's a PROCESS, a MANNER OF THOUGHT, not a physical object.

I find your comment disingenuous; you can't POSSIBLY actually be that stupid. *rolls eyes skyward*

[xychr0]

No - it's not a physical object. The questions are not disingenuous - they're honest and meant to bring about the point that if you believe in logic, you are believing in something that is immaterial.

[BionicDance]

Believing in something that is immaterial is not the issue here; relying on and trusting a process which you can see working, which you can employ for yourself, and which you can test for yourself is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from believing in something for which you must have FAITH, and therefore cannot test. By its very nature, faith demands your belief WITHOUT the kind of testing that shows logic WORKS.

[xychr0]

Do you think that logic exists with or without human beings? Is logic in your view objective?

[BionicDance]

Oh, for the love of Wilbur...you might as well be asking if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a noise? *rolls eyes skyward*

Your attempt to liken logic to god because it is immaterial has FAILED. Miserably.

Whether or not logic EXISTS without human beings is irrelevant. Logic is meant to be used to reach an objective conclusion, through examining evidence and eliminating impossibilities.

If you're getting at something, get to it quicker, please.

[xychr0]

Well, if you're uninterested in answering questions necessary to further a debate in which we both seem to have an interest, and insistent on being insulting, I've got better things to do. Peace and happiness to you. - Xychr0

[BionicDance]

Your questions cannot BE answered; they're based on thoroughly incorrect assumptions. The only way for me to answer them is if I concede to something I don't believe.

It's like whenever a religious person demands to know how the universe was created if not by god; to answer that question, you have to agree that the universe WAS created in the first place instead of occurring naturally. You want me to debate on YOUR terms, and now you're taking your ball and going home when I WON'T.

[xychr0]

I'm not assuming anything - I'm simply asking if you believe logic to objective: would logic exist without the human mind, like the laws of mathematics and natural laws.

My questions / comments are short due to the 500 char. limit. And I don't like talking with someone who insults, as I try not to do that. This discussion is about belief, but if your beliefs are set, and mine are set, we'll have to agree to disagree and hope one another finds peace and happiness. Good Night.

[BionicDance]

My beliefs are obviously NOT set; that's the point of being a skeptic. A skeptic neither believes nor disbelieves until there is sufficient OBJECTIVE evidence to do so, and even then the skeptic is prepared to revise their position based on new information.

YOUR arguments have been full of assumptions, failed logic, subjective evidence, and hearsay; you've barely defended your position AT ALL. And you don't even seem to realize it.

[xychr0]

You're absolutely right. I respectfully bow to your superior intellect.

[BionicDance]

Concession accepted.

[bs2174]

Your guilty before God already skeptic or not, the Lord has made Himself know to you in your heart of hearts and therefore you do know God and so you will be guilty on the Day of Judgement.

[BionicDance]

No one has made themselves known to me in my heart but me.

[BionicDance]

First of all, I don't truly HAVE beliefs. I see everything in terms of probabilities; those things that are most likely to be true based on the available evidence might be called beliefs, but there's ALWAYS a tiny kernel of doubt. That's the TRUE definition of a skeptic: someone who doesn't believe just because they're TOLD something.

Second, no one SHOULD listen to what I say without a damn good reason; check my facts, don't take them for granted!

[kisstheclowns]

And please, until you read about what empirisism means. Stop appealing to it. You are just wasting everyones time. No one is trying to convert you and I hope you are aware that not even a brain-dead human (oh, i mean SUB-human) would take the lunacy you keep repeating. Youre like a like a little girl with her ears plugged yelling "NANANANA" over her fathers voice.

[kisstheclowns]

I will take your insults because i can tell youre just throwing a fit because you have been introduced to the falacy of your own thinking. Being aware of your self is not what makes a homosapien a homosapien. I know you don't believe that. Its just that you find it easier to live with killing someone who isnt as brain responsive to you. Just don't sit there and postulate some hack way of defining things.

[BionicDance]

My self is what makes me a PERSON; I don't limit personhood to humans, nor does human genetics make a lump of meat a person. And being a PERSON is what's important, not being biologically human.

[BionicDance]

And banning abortion is MOST CERTAINLY thought control; not everybody believes, as you christians do, that personhood begins when it does; by forcing us to conform to YOUR preconceived notions that have their basis in religion, you are, in effect, forcing us to behave as if your religion is true by force of law. This violates the separation of church and state, and is therefore ILLEGAL.

[jblackpost]

So then by that logic, banning rape is thought control. Banning rape assumes that there are inviolable moral imperatives that people must be forced to conform to. But you have no right to force your arbitrary personal beliefs on the rapist who is merely propagating the species as many mammals do. So, according to your logic, all a country has to do is pass a law making it legal, and, boom, suddenly it's ok.

[BionicDance]

No, banning rape stops empirically provable harm. Banning rape stop something that is explicitly objected to by one of the parties involved. Your comparison is disingenuous and not parallel to the abortion question.

[kisstheclowns]

wow, so what exactly is the differnce between a human and a person? hmmmm.........nope............­.can't see it lady. oh, I know, cause its attached to its mother?....no..cause that would mean people who are on life support aren't human. Hell, lets go all the way and say anyone who can't read isn't human....Scary stuff.

[BionicDance]

A human is not necessarily a PERSON. A human is a sack of meat, bones, and hair; a person is an ego, a super-ego, an ID, memory, disposition, emotion, fears, loves, passions, relationships.

To put it simply, a human is WHAT you are, a person is WHO you are.

A brain-dead human body is no more a person than a lump of hamburger, or an amoeba that can only respond to stimulus without thinking.

[xychr0]

Not true. All the US Presidents and at least 3/4 of the Congresspeople through history have been Christians. Yet America is the freest country on Earth for different faiths and different lifestyles. I'm a Christian and I wouldn't back up those laws, just as I didn't want anti-religion laws when I was an atheist.

[kisstheclowns]

Dude, a5dr3 made you look like a chump and the fact that you haven't realized that yet makes it even worse. I know that public education does nothing for the mind other than stuff it full of "soundbite philosophies," i never realized how deep this can go. If someone refutes your position, usually one surrenders it.  Do you not realize that you can't empericaly prove everything? Repeat after me, if you haven't empericaly experienced tomorrow, how do you know that the sun will rise?

[BionicDance]

You don't even understand the very concept. I've never claimed the sun will rise tomorrow; it may not. The evidence, BASED ON EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION OVER TIME, suggests so strongly that it will, such that doubting it would be foolish, but I have no empirical proof that the sun WILL rise tomorrow.

Similarly, you have no empirical evidence there's such a thing as a god. Show otherwise or concede.

[corneliuscranechase]

No amount of EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION OVER TIME will ever lead to the conclusion that the sun will even "likely" rise tomorrow, because this rests on the assumption that the laws of probability will apply in the future in the same way they have in the past. It begs the question. The doctrine of the uniformity of nature is taken on faith by all empiricists.