Greg Bahnsen - Worldviews in Conflict (part 2)

[MRKetter81]

"Lay off the cannabis brother. I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation."

Really? All I'm hearing are venomous emotional ad hominem attacks

"Dumbledore/unicorns/Ra/Shiva/­T­om Cruise"

Nothing could be a bigger ad hominem strawman argument, and I have no doubt you're well aware.

"The alternative to science is emotion" Well what a hypocrite that makes you.

So do you want to whine more about the points I'm making or address them?

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 I'm just trying to find an explanation for your lack of coherent points. You claim "God has set all standards" I counter claim that "*other agencies you don't accept* have set all standards" to illustrate that your claim is based on nothing more than personal preference. Rather than addressing the argument you call it an "ad hominem strawman argument" which is the clearest indication possible that you have absolutely no idea what those terms mean.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "You claim "God has set all standards" I counter claim that "*other agencies you don't accept* have set all standards" to illustrate that your claim is based on nothing more than personal preference"

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."

The concept of God shares no likeness with anything you gave in your example... THAT'S AD HOMINEM

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Well, I'm glad to hear you've gotten a dictionary, unfortunately the next step is understanding it. Ad Hominem would be "your claim is wrong because you're a spherical moron" I argued: your claim is wrong because there are countless opposing claims with identical justification that you do not accept therefore you're claim is based on personal preference alone. How is your claim that "God has set all standards" more justified than "the flying spaghetti monster has set all standards"?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean ""your claim is wrong because you're a spherical moron"

Yea.. so comparing the concept of God to Tom cruise isn't so implicating something moronic or absurd?

Not trying to imply anything at all? No... I think your tone is very clear, as is stands to try degrade my belief to the absurdity you think it is.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 haha wow, do you have a vision problem or something? I didn't call you a moron, that was just an example of an actual ad hominem to help you understand the mistake you were making calling my argument ad hominem.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean You're trying to create guilt by association... that's ad hominem last I checked.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 nonsense, what guilty party am I associating you with?

[kyebean]

When someone disables ratings, it strongly suggests, that they know they're in the wrong, or at least very unpopular. It shows that they believe they have a better chance of spreading their video if people aren't allowed give their opinion of it. Very telling. Censorship is not a valid form of argument.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Ah please! So is shouting people down to make a point. Don't misconstrue many voices for reason. ALL debates have censorship, otherwise all you have is a shouting match. This topic is a heated one. It's only fair to bring arguments against out in the open where they can be tested to be true or not. In short.. people CAN rate by leaving a comment, otherwise they had nothing to really bring to the discussion anyways other than a stupid poll button that takes little thought at all.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Likes/dislikes is just a way of aggregating people's general opinions about the vid, so you don't have to read through 2000 comments to get an overview. Why disable it, if you're not trying to hide the fact that your video has gotten a negative response? I think that people who post these types of videos are not interested in real debate and simply want to prop up their retarded dogma in any way they can.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "general opinions" are completely relative to anything being discussed in a lecture on logically conflicting worldviews.

"Why disable it, if you're not trying to hide the fact that your video has gotten a negative response?"

Because response is and always has been relative. People don't respond well to resetting a broken limb, but it needs to be done for it to heal.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean I think people like you don't really have any real desire to "overview" anything seeing how you posted the same comment under each video while never making a single point that addressed the actual content of the video. I think you want to prop up your own "retarded dogma" by trying to silence what you disagree with through some ad hominem straw man argument that has nothing to do with the actual content of the video. Likes/dislikes do not constitute a debate.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Your first statement is a non sequitur. The content of the video is such utter nonsense, that I didn't see any point addressing it, but if you'd like to discuss it, I will. I'm not trying to silence them, and posting a comment is hardly a method to do that. I agree that ratings aren't a debate, I'm just trying to raise the question of why the poster would disable them. I've seen a strong corellation between disabled ratings, low ratings, and fundamentalist idiots.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "The content of the video is such utter nonsense, that I didn't see any point addressing it"

Which is a matter of personal opinion that is purely subjectional

"I've seen a strong corellation between disabled ratings, low ratings, and fundamentalist idiots."

Likewise very subjective argument. I can't account for what you've "seen", but I know you haven't brought one valid argument to one these videos addressing as to why they were logically "fundamentalist idiots".

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 lol, subjectional? really? invest in a dictionary. This particular video isn't so bad, but the nonsense comes in after he starts off speaking about Christian mythology in an informative way, and then slowly starts apparently stating the mythology as fact, without any point of justification. Let's make it objective then, you show me a rationalist video that has disabled ratings, and I'll show you 10 fundie ones, and we can keep going as long as you want.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean This video is of a class filled with students who share the same worldview; NOT a debate about defending those subjects.

You are are an atheist who will have "subjective" thoughts according to the nature of an atheist no?

So when you say "this is utter nonsense" and you define yourself as a 'Ah'theist(NO,theism) and someone brings forth theism, I for obvious reasons find your opinion subjective towards the matter.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 I think any class should encourage critical analysis of the curriculum and the beliefs of the students, that's what seperates education from indoctrination. All thoughts and opinions are subjective, it doesn't matter how you "find" them. It has no bearing on their truth. Neither does the other beliefs of any party involved in the discussion.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean I'm sure someone practicing 'Ah'mathematics would find math void of any intellectual value. One person spent the majority of his whole life finding the mathematical equation to a donut. Did he waste his time? To someone who thinks math is perhaps at least "overrated" might have an 'Ah'mathematical view on such a thing and thus would concur that such a person did in fact waste his time.

All of which is subjective to your worldview.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Do I really need to point out the difference between math and theism? I'm interested in truth and reality, which are not subjective.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "Do I really need to point out the difference between math and theism?" If you want to do it for your self by all means.

Bahnsen or I never claimed Math was theism, but because of its annotations of consistent and absolute systems based off of inductive principles it ceases to be math if there are no such standards by which you can stipulate “one” is “one” and “two” is “two” in which case math is meaningless.

Cont...

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 I don't want to, lol, I thought that was clear. One is necessarily one, what that has to do with theism or a point to your comment I suspect I'll never know

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Atheism doesn't provide a standard, so I and Bahnsen alike feel fair in saying you've borrowed the theistic worldview in which such a standard does exist. That God has a purpose for "one" being "one" and "two" being "two". Now that maybe an explanation you don't like, but it at least scratches the surface and has consistency in its proper understanding.

Your worldview as you have already displayed is all relativism, opinion and conjecture.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Atheism doesn't fit the definition of "worldview" you're using. It's not an ideology, it's simply a lack of belief in certain claims. Is not collecting stamps a hobby? LOL gawd has a purpose for 1 being 1?! and what is that? There is fantastic standard for what's real, like I've tried to explain to you and it has nothing to do with atheism or theism. Even if there wasn't, adding an invisible 3rd party that you claim to be super-smart or w/e is about the worst standard you could have.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Not to mention I can name more than a few things your worldview states without any point of justification. Lets push the antithesis on your side now.

Lets start with this... "justification"... that word is hyperbole in your worldview. You have no standard by which to call anything "just" or otherwise. You merely stipulated it so, and declared that it doesn't measure up to your rubber ruler of a standard that you bend to your relative needs.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 You can name a few things? By all means. What are you waiting for? Science (human perception and reason) is my standard of justification. As it is for virtually the entire intellectual/acedemic/research communities. It has also, incidentally, produced the modern civilization that you constantly take advantage of.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "Science (human perception and reason) is my standard of justification."

Funny most scientists realize human perception is FLAWED, so is your standard.

If your standard is perception... then who's? You've just reduced your justification back to consensus again; which you just claimed wasn't your justification...

So how is it your justification and not your justification? Make up your mind...

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Of course I realize it's flawed, is there any alternative? Perception AND REASON is my standard. How is it reduced to consensus? There's this thing called reality, look it up.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean You can't claim that logic is "self evident" that would be using logic to prove logic; which is circular reasoning, which logic itself forbids. So what standard is it that you have to assume anything at all about Logic?

If by "human perception"... then why not other beings? If by other beings, which ones and why?

Any answer you could possibly give is completely subjective to the very system you're trying to credit, which is nothing but a big circular argument.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 funny, I never did claim that, you're the only one harping on about it. Like I said before, logic is an emergent aspect of language which is an emergent behavior of life. It can be understood in the same way one can understand a language. If there is some aspect of logic that you abject to, let's discuss it, instead of you pretending you know the first thing about it and running around in circles with your head up your ass. Other beings with similar mental capacity could use science.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "Like I said before, logic is an emergent aspect of language which is an emergent behavior of life"

Once again that's no different than a relative term for another kind of consensus. "Emergent aspects of Language" are all relative and subjective to what language is being spoke and who is speaking, oh and Logic; which is circular reasoning.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 when I say emergent from language, I mean emergent from communication, not any particular language, one of the great things about logic is that it does not change based on the language being spoken. Religious texts on the other hand ARE completely subjective to the authors, transcribers and translators. Consesus has nothing to do with logic, you're just proving your ignorance. Here's some logic 101: A=A. 99% might believe that A=B but logically A still = A.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "Consesus has nothing to do with logic, you're just proving your ignorance."

Well then what basis do you have for "true" and "false"?

Is it because you see them case and point? That would be using logic to prove logic again = circular

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 The basis is science. Specifically, correspondance theory is the leading theory of truth. "do you see them case and point?" I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "The basis is science" = Which is a system of logic which also makes that point once again circular, which breaks the laws of logic... try again.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 THE BASIS FOR TRUTH IS SCIENCE. How is that circular, and why should I care?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean And the basis for science is....? facts? a state of truth... circular

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 EVIDENCE! do I need to build some kind of seige weapon to torpedo this into your brain?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Because circular logic is a fallacy in the long run... You could claim that it has the nature of an axiom, but that still leaves it relative to where the axiom begins and end.

Axioms are accentually void of any real standards to be found. If that's the case then everything you said so far is all relative.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 The only axiom I've even mentioned is A=A, and that has nothing to do with circular reasoning. WTF you and relativity is like Don Quixote and windmills. How does it matter if what I've said is "relative"? Please tell me something that is not relative to something else. It's the nature of existence.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "How does it matter if what I've said is "relative"?"

Because then you're whole arguing here right now about "Logic" is an utter waste of time if you no standard reason for doing so..

It's like me telling you I believe in God... just because... or on blah blah blah.. I don't believe in God for those reasons, neither would I expect it of you.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 So this is your argument: I have said things that are relative (like everything) therefore I don't have a reason to talk about logic. Wow that could win gold in the non sequitur olympics. I never said "just because" or "on blah blah blah". So, why DO you expect me to "believe in God".

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean So this is your argument: I have said things that are relative (like everything) therefore I don't have a reason to talk about logic. Wow that could win gold in the non sequitur olympics. I never said "just because" or "on blah blah blah". So, why DO you expect me to "believe in God".

All evidence to the contrary... what reason if any does relativism give?

If all is relative, then why are you typing? It's pointless as this case and point will end and logic will continue to change.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 I don't consider myself a relativist, my reason for talking about logic is that I have a probably misguided desire to educate you a little about it. I'm typing for the same reason, the fact that everything is relative has no more impact on that than the fact that Barney is a purple dinosaur. I'm getting the impression that english is your second language or something, "case and point" is not real phrase. "Case IN point" means "for example". Your use of it is just nonsensical.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Suffice to say... If logic is relative, it's also subjective and inconsistent. True is no longer true and everything is nonsense

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 So, you believe that logic is not relative?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Yet if you're going to make claims about a transcendental, I want to know on what basis you make such claims?

Lets put it this way.. you could deny that a transcendental exists all of your existence, because it's nature is transcendental to your own.

It transcends your capability to verify. "Box of Crackers in the pantry" example in Bahnsen's debate with Stein.

No where can you take the box of crackers out and verify it the way you would any other object.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 I'm not making claims about a transcendental, I haven't even said that word. You'll have to elaborate, the only box of crackers I know about is you.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "I'm not making claims about a transcendental, I haven't even said that word." Logic is transcendental by it's very nature... you've been making claims about Logic no?

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 define trancendental.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Box of Crackers...

You can't treat a transcendental like a box of crackers.. you can't take it out... look at it.. say it is, or isn't there the way you would a box of crackers.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Give me an example of a trancendental.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Your very own nature is transcendental. You can only account for the physical part of experience your body is capable of.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 so, you're saying that our bodies are capable of non physical experience? like what? every conceptual (or "trancendental") experience of our minds is an abstraction of our brains and it's very well accounted for.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean so, you're saying that our bodies are capable of non physical experience? like what? every conceptual (or "trancendental") experience of our minds is an abstraction of our brains and it's very well accounted for.

No.. I'm saying our bodies can only understand through experience so much of the body it self.

In other words.. It can't experience everything about our nature.. You aren't aware of blood cells in your body all the time, because the nature of your brain limits you in that.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Experience it self is VERY limited.

My eyes only see so much, my ears only hear so much ect.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 yes. so what?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean It's this very same limitation that keeps you from knowing certain things about the very same things you experience on a daily basis.

[MRKetter81]

@MRKetter81 A Transcendental is one such example; something experienced, yet not entirely.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 sure, I think that applies to anything we experience. We can't seem to experience every aspect of anything, at least not at once and if you did, how would you know?

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 experience is limited, which keeps me from knowing things about my experience? If I experience something, how can I not know about it?

[MRKetter81]

@MRKetter81 "Can you account every thing every organ in you're body is are doing right now by experience?"

Lol sorry.. I'm tired.. I think you get the point though

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 of course not, what's your point? yeah haha call it a night then.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "yeah haha call it a night then."

Will do.. thanks for your time.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 thank you as well.

[kyebean]

so, you're defining "trancendental" as non-physical, or concepts?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean God is also transcendental, you can't treat the question of God's existence like you would a box of crackers.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 don't start TAGing me please. That has been refuted so thoroughly. How should the question of "God's" existence be treated differently than the crackers?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Thus I feel confident saying your whole basis it self is relative. Theory is often inconsistent, yet you claim logic is theory... That would merely conclude everything you just said as hyperbole.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 You don't get "thus" you haven't even established your premise. Why are you so obsessed with calling things relative? My position is relative to reality, that's what makes it a good position. Evidence is dynamic, therefore, my position is also dynamic, this is fundamental to science and severely lacking in religion. I referenced a theory of truth, I did not claim "logic is theory" please clean the lint out of your brain.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean My position is relative to reality, that's what makes it a good position."

And any physicist will easily tell you reality is relative.

Time and space are relative... I gather you know that much?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean And if all is relative and subjective to you... then so is everything you're saying and doing right now. Of course I'd never imagine you'd concede to such a point, but then you have no way of logically explaining yourself out of it either; and yes you need to.. otherwise your whole argument is completely pointless and a wast of time.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean I'm sure you might want to stipulate it's based on a consensus. Well than which consensus? Which of these consensus will we be applying, and what justification, might I add, do you have that?

You call things "illogical" and "unjust" but you know as well as I you have no ultimate, nor consistent standard by which you can even make such assertions. You barrow my worldview where such things do exist in order that you might try to apply your use of them.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 If justification were based only on consensus, than it WOULD be subjective. What do you mean by an "ultimate" standard of logic and justification? If you were better educated on this subject you would know that logic and science are extremely consistent, that's their point and they are more so than any alternatives. I never have, nor ever will "barrow" your worldview, whatever that means.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean If you were better educated on this subject you would know that logic and science are extremely consistent" And if you were better educated you would know that all you just iterated was a presupposition that you've neither proven nor accounted for.

If you want to assume logic as "self evident" then by the same logic I can do the same with God, so what's the point in this discussion?

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 You need me to prove that logic and science are consistent? You could almost say that logic and science are definatively consistent. The alternative to logic is random, nonsensical chaos (exhibit A: 90% of your comments) The alternative to science is emotion, you think that's more consistent? Logic is a conceptual set of tautologies, rules/properties emergent from language, "god" is a patently obsurd claim about the physical world. You really can't see the difference?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "The alternative to logic is random, nonsensical chaos (exhibit A: 90% of your comments) The alternative to science is emotion, you think that's more consistent?"

Well seeing how most scientists believe the world exists on such a basis that would some up all your worldview has to offer on the subject of logic actually having any tangible standards.

"Atheism doesn't fit the definition of "worldview"" Atheism is a presupposition and as a presupposition it's also a worldview.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 ????!!!!!! I don't know if I can decode any meaning from that nonsense, but it seems you want logic to be tangible. It's a concept. is intelligence tangible? is evil tangible? are words tangible? guess what they all exist and are useful, valid concepts. Even your precious deity isn't tangible. Define "atheism", "presupposition" and "worldview". Seriously, do it. Not only will it help you organize your thoughts, there is a lack of shared understanding between us of those words.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean So to answer your point "I never have, nor ever will "barrow" your worldview, whatever that means.".

You have, because your own worldview can't account for the very same standards of logic you're trying to use to make your case. No such standard in your wordlview does exist nor can it outside the fact that it is God who has set all standards or all is relative; in which case anything and everything you say is relative.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Lay off the cannabis brother. I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation. I don't know what you mean by "your own worldview" but I think I just did give you a pretty decent account of logic. Logic doesn't exist in my worldview? I understand logic, I use logic, that's not enough for it to "exist in my worldview". Dumbledore/unicorns/Ra/Shiva/T­om Cruise/my neighbor has set all standards or all is relative; in which case anything and everything you say is relative.

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "Dumbledore/unicorns/Ra/Shiva/­T­om Cruise/my neighbor has set all standards or all is relative; in which case anything and everything you say is relative."

So Tom Cruise sets all standards for your version of Logic? I'd like to do something with this point if there is one, but I haven't a clue what you just articulated.

I will say this.. your standard of logic is quite relative. Everything is case and point, but what case and what point?

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 My point should be quite obvious. "God has set all standards" is no more meaningful or valid a statement than "Tom Cruise's spirit gave birth to all standards". How do you decide to believe one over the other? I've asked this before, and I'm finding it increasingly unlikely that you will actually answer any of my questions, but how is it you presume to know so much about my "standard of logic" and how is yours different/less relative? also, what do you presume it's relative to?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "I've asked this before, and I'm finding it increasingly unlikely that you will actually answer any of my questions"

That's because the burden of proof is still yours.. what standard if all do you have for logic?

You don't seem to like or accept mine I gather, but you have yet to logically address how you have any measure by which you can judge that very same standard you don't like, because you don't have one.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 So your idea of someone having the burden of proof is that you ignore them when they ask you a direct question? What claim have I made that you would like me to support? I have the same standard that anyone else has for logic. Do you reject logic altogether? What do you mean by "mine"?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean "I have the same standard that anyone else has for logic. Do you reject logic altogether?"

What standard? You haven't given one. You've merely told me you don't accept mine in so many words.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 What exactly are you asking me to give? For the tenth time: I don't know what yours is, so how can I not accept it?

[MRKetter81]

@kyebean Your morals are subjective just as your commitment to them are. Your arguments and assertions are subjective just as your commitment to an ultimate, invariant, universal, abstract, standard of logic is.

The word "justification" for you is void of any real meaning other than your inconsistent, arbitrary, relative and subjective opinion or that of a 'claimed' arbitrary consensus that you stipulated correct in doing so.

[kyebean]

@MRKetter81 Alrighty then. You assume I'm committed to this standard of logic you describe. How does it differ from your standard of logic? Justification would be for example someone actually finding evidence of a talking snake, "god", the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. before asserting they exist(ed).

[nyomythus]

I expect a defender f religion to say, "Genocide in some situations is justified." Do you know what genocide is? It includes the death of innocent people, and those so young they don't have the cognitive brain power to do or enable evil. This is never justified. Cya. BTW, mankind invented God, not the other way around.

[a5dr3]

I'm not campaigning for genocide, but if u research the monstrous nations that fought against Israel, I think u will understand why God wanted to destroy them and end a perpetual cycle of violence. I dont believe there r innocent people, and I believe that God can do whatever he wants with his creation, even create some individuals that have been ordained to live only for a short time. Again, you have presupposed a Christian view of reality when u use words like

[a5dr3]

justified. In an atheist universe u have mechanistic individual opinions, determined wholly by antecedent factors, against other individual opinions. Justice becomes simply a subjective matter of perspective. Without an objective standard of righteousness there can be no coherent concept of justice. Once again you demonstrate that anti-theism needs theism just to build its argument.

[nyomythus]

Morality is NOT relative. Morality is a farce if it is not based on reason. Hitler thinking he was right may have been 'relative' to he and his cronies, but killing off the Nazis, Al Qaeda, and other international dooms day cults is a moral duty of humanity.

[a5dr3]

nyom your so demonstrably conflicted its ridiculous. u keep evading my original question because u cant answer it. Morality and reason are two very different areas, if u appeal to reason, however, I have even more difficult questions for you. -Do animals have moral duty? On your worldview thats all we are. -Moral duty is not intelligible in a universe that consists of nothing but matter. In order to make sense of the things u know r true, your going to have to change your worldview.

[kyebean]

@a5dr3 far from knowing they're true I actually find these ideas ridiculous. Moral "duty" and immaterial....what? not matter surely. Spirit, ectoplasm? wtf are you talking about?

[nyomythus]

Morality is innate.

[a5dr3]

OK. -Account for the last century. -Your comment on the last page was idiotic by the way. Bahnsen lived a short life of poverty dedicated to the service of others. Man, what a dense comment. I'm so tired of your brand sorly, teenage comments. Don't you guys have something better to do? Like actually reading some philosophy? U guys make yourself look so dumb when u comment on topics you obviously know next to nothing about.

[nyomythus]

Account for 'what' in the last century? Comments are required to be terse, only 50 words per post.

[a5dr3]

Well, you just did us all such a grand favor by solving one of the oldest problems of philosophy in 3 words, it shouldn't then be too difficult for u to explain why if we are all so innately moral why there were 20 million deaths by atrocity in the last century.

[nyomythus]

From Armenia to Rwanda the genocides came from religious authority. What's a Holy Book without something nasty in store for the unbeliever? Religion poisons the human instinct for good; what makes good people do evil things. Germans and Russians were populations indoctrinate by religion. Behold, the power of blind faith.

[kisstheclowns]

Your knowledge of these events are foolishly in accurate. Did you find them on the back of a cereal box (like Kellogg's Atheist Flakes)? Germany and Russia's genocide resulted from the rise of Marxism (atheist) which saw Religion as the enemy of the state. The Young Turks slaughtered Armenians for being Christian. Rwanda was a power struggle to fill the vacuum that resulted from Belgian monarchies withdraw. Behold the power of blind stupidity.

[nyomythus]

European populations were indoctrinated by Monarchs/Tsars who saw themselves as something more than human; divine. Hitler and Stalin used this to their advantage. Research the connection with Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army with the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda. You've already conceded the Armenian Genocide. 3 -- 0, my favor.

[a5dr3]

So said that U don't and will probably never understand that all wordlviews r religious in nature, and r so historically blinded to know the actual effects of the Gospel. (I agree other religions or belief systems r harmful)Granting u now the ridiculous premise that all or even a fraction of deaths were attributable to theism and that theism is manmade, how do u now account for, according to your premise of mans innate morality, that

[a5dr3]

he has created and chosen to follow such a wicked belief systems to the point of 20 million deaths by atrocity? U do realize u haven't helped your case any, only introduced the instrument by which man exercises evil? If man is so moral,why then does he persist in religion which is so obviously wicked?

[nyomythus]

Keep it terse.

[a5dr3]

Why don't u answer the question nyomythus? If man is so innately moral how do you account for the travesty that u attribute to religious explotation?

[nyomythus]

Obviously morality is not as innate as 'breathing'; there are also gradations of nature. You're the one defending religion; you tell me why people do horrible things in the name of religion? I'll help you out; genocide, slavery, etc have been justified by the Torah, Koran, Bible for starters.

[a5dr3]

Because people have chosen to rebel against God and follow there evil desire, creating false religions and belief systems, sometimes even under the name of Christ. How do you account for evil in a universe without God, where we are all just animals, some more advanced than others, doing whatever animals want to do? When a dog kills a squirrel, or forces another dog to copulate do you consider it evil? Why are we, according to your worldview, ontologically any different?

[a5dr3]

Genocide in some situations is justified. There were unimaginably wicked nations that were beyond hope of reperation. Even then God usually laid out conditions by which some could be saved. -On our worldview, this is not a problem for several reasons, one of which being that God ordained from all eternity the number of each mans days on Earth. When God ends a life, he is not tragically ending it prematurely. Google 'wallbuilders slavery' and read the article that comes up.

[lmiddleman]

christian and non- world views are polar opposites? god says to slay those are are "abominations" standing in the way of the "promised land"?  Despite the high-brow packaging, I can still smell what's being shoveled...

[a5dr3]

You prove with your animosity the point you for some reason disagree with. Your gross mischarecterizations of Scripture are inane and childish. I'll follow your warped hermeneusis long enough to ask the question on what ethical basis you object to the Jews slaying the armies that opposed them? It sounds like u believe in moral laws, if so on what basis?

[ALogicalConstruct]

Societal norms, what behavior would support a society functioning, for the most part what we would deem moral. It is just a societal construct, nothing supernatural is needed to create that, look at pidgeons or wolves or fish.... they display moral charictaristics, this isn't something limited to man.

[a5dr3]

Your confusing giving a cause with giving a reason

[ALogicalConstruct]

you mean why in the grand scheme of the cosmos do we have morals? Why do we need a reason? Or, are you opperating from the stance that you cannot imagine a universe without a god so you cannot concieve of something without reason? Or am i all together off the mark?

[a5dr3]

Take a step back and think of what your position reduces to, construct. You have made morality relative. Ask yourself if u really believe that. Ask yourself if u actually live that way. Do I have to mention the naturalistic fallacy? Arguing from what is the case to what ought to be the case? And I don't grant u that evolution is an explanation, even causaly. Google evolutionary arguments against naturalism'

[ALogicalConstruct]

a5dr3:

I am not saying morality is gententic, i am saying it is societal, though there is evidence that genetics influence your political and religious affilitations. Yeah morality is relative, i don't see fear as a good argument against that, look at non-civilized cultures.

On a seperate note, isn't the thumb up/thumb down thing for dialouge, not a petty tool for mob rule, could we obstaine from the childish thumbs downing of people who hold opposing oppinions.

[kisstheclowns]

There you go again. Morality is relative? You know you don't REALLLY believe that. If that was the case, you would have to say Hitler did nothing wrong...I mean, come on!!...we all know that relativism leads to fatalism.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Wow, thank god soemone knows what i am thinking so i don't have to worry about it.

Yeah, hitler did nothing wrong in his worldview, and neonazi's would call him a hero. I think what he did was wrong based on my beliefs..... that doesn't mean that anyone else needs to hold them.

[a5dr3]

Your inconsistency should also be pointed out when you believe that the entire edifice of philosophical, and scientific pursuit for meaning, knowledge, purpose and explanation rests on the foundation of the assumption that ultimately there is no meaning, knowledge, purpose or explanation.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Since when did anything need to be absolute, look at sociopaths, not to mention psycopaths. All utilitarianism or social contractarianism is are emchanisms for how people think we should act for the betterment of all, living by those codes are choices. Can you explain differning moral views without using god or satan, or are you opporating from non-falluability?

[a5dr3]

I didn't thumb down-Why don't u appease clowns and I by just simply stating that the Holocaust was not in any objective and absolute sense immoral? We will then leave u your own devices as long as u live consistently with your professed presuppositions. And we proudly cannot, on the basis of Gods infallability, operate reasonably outside the blackhole of our Christian worldview. The argument is that u can't either.

[ALogicalConstruct]

a5dr3, that was more a general statement i assumed KTC did it. As for the holocaust are you talkign about personal moral sense or a moral theory? My assumption would the latter because being that moral sense is personal it is subjective which means that it cannot dictate any moral absolutes. I know you subscribe to a divine command view of morality so lets not haggle with that. Lets keep the topoi of stasis similar shall we?

[ALogicalConstruct]

If i where to use social contractarianism or some other theory would that dictate absolute truth? That then would be my answer.... i would say that moral sense is subjective (based on the fact that we have hitlers and stalins, if you call a theory of practice that would aid in the survival of our species through the natural selection of psycological memes an absolute then yeah it exists, but it is nothing divine.

[a5dr3]

It's very simple, ethical relativity needs to be followed to its logical conclusion, brought out of our intellectual parlor games and into existential reality. A social contract can't untangle any relativist from these problems as it is only anchored in the opinions of those who choose to follow it. Hitler is a clear example of survival of the fittest in practice.

[a5dr3]

Can u live consistently with your convictions and declare that the holocaust was justified within the German social contract and therefore good?

[ALogicalConstruct]

I wouldn't say german i would say nazi, and if you frame the question like that then i believe that within their belief set it was not wrong.... The holocaust was classic in-group out-group dynamics.... if you look at it the reason the the tribe of isrealits went on to establish a religion that would become this wide spread was because it was violent and genocidal, look at Deuteronomy 20.

[a5dr3]

So if u believe that morality is determined for certain groups by the consent of that group, and the Nazis determined Jews(and a lot of other ethnic groups)should be slaughtered than you therefore believe that the Holocaust was justified. Thats basic deduction, right? -I don't believe Israel established itself, and I don't have a problem with violence or even genocide under certain conditions, like those in Deuteronomy

[ALogicalConstruct]

I believe that the holocaust was justified by the nazi's i feel all i have to go on is MY morality which would say it is wrong because i don't believe in needless suffering, of course that was based on the premise that they didn't need to kill them which, if you are anti-semetic, you could argue with.

[ALogicalConstruct]

SO no i don't believe that it was justified, anymore than i think that ted bundy was justified. However that is just my oppinion, you seem to believe in genocide which indicates a level of racism, i believe that people can be better than people based on thier individual merits but groups cannot be discriminated against using that

[ALogicalConstruct]

Exactly, that is all we can really have.

[ALogicalConstruct]

ANd on something else.... your world view is based on subjective experiances of this deemed to be a god or gods.... whether it is yawhe or zeus is not important. How can subjective experiances have any bering on absolute truth? Science is empirical abd the observations are objective to the individual.

[a5dr3]

No, it's based on Gods self revelation. There is an element of subjectivity in my apprehension of that revelation but the revelation itself assures me that I can gain knowledge empirically. To deny that we can know anything objectively leads to a skepticism that is self refuting and destructive of knowledge. Again, Christian theism is proven from the impossibility of the contrary. It is this same revelation that uniquely gives a cogent foundation for us to

[a5dr3]

overcome the plethora of philisophical problems that, in an atheistic universe, would render scientific pursuit and knowledge itself impossible. Gods revelation is a self attesting system that is not subject to mine or your apprehension of it.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Wow, the idea of a memes virus makes so much sense, and in a way it very sad, because while a parent would never want to give thier aids to thier child, religious zelots love too. YOu have the burdern of rejoiner based on all the other arguments against god, you have failed to meet that. and what TAG proves god..... your in the same black hole as Banshen.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Everything immaterial steams from something material.... i mean we don't even need to talk about gravity, electromagnetism, the strong, and the weak force because those are just gravitons, photons, Gluons, and weak gauge bosons respectively. All we need to describe logic is emergence: many simple object following similar simple laws create greater complexity, it is just the old humunculii again.

[a5dr3]

I don't believe that everything immaterial comes from material,I actually believe the opposite. -Well, if I just grant u this one thing,emergence or creation,that u can't explain, + as if then u could construct a system, sorry can't do it!I could then just ask u to grant me one thing, God! You'll have to account for the origin of things apart from him. -Logic is something very different than the effects of matter. Check out Frege's "The Foundation of Arithmetic"

[a5dr3]

I didn't understand that so well?

[ALogicalConstruct]

Are you using "logic" as a way to decribe "order" like the fact that all laws of nature are the same in everyplace, and that we have a limited number of elements? A limited number of elementry particles. rahter than chaos?

Emercence isn't a supernatural concept it is the process by which simplicity gains comlplexity, like in the same was a computer creates all this amazing stuff from 1's and 0's, it is a natural process, it occures everywhere in nature.

[MRKetter81]

Even from a scientific stand point you can't deny predestination. Cause and Effect is a clear part of everything in matter and existance. Right down to every synapse in that brain of yours. Down to even the subatomic particals; ALL a subject to cause and effect. ACTION and REACTION, are clear evidence of distict and undisputible ordor that even your very thoughts are a subject to.

Your "will" is pushed around like a reed in the wind, and always will be.

[MRKetter81]

Chaos does not produce ordor. Nor does ordor produce chaos.

ALL things are complex wother you choose to be ignorent of the complexity of them or not.

Your logic is circular at best. You use logic(WHICH HAS ORDOR) to say chaos produces ordor? LOL

Then go back to your empty headed endeavor of attaining sublime stupidity, and leave it those who actually use their brain as a uniform apparatus to actually use reason and logic and account for such use.

"Emercence" isn't even a word...

[JPBuysjr]

@MRKetter81 neither is the word ORDOR a word

[MRKetter81]

@JPBuysjr Thanks for the ad hominem

Now bring up a point.

[jordanbokma]

@MRKetter81 The point is that you told the other guy the word "emercence" isn't a word, hinting that he is stupid. I did the exact same thing with you, you use the word "ordor" which is not a word either, hereby calling you stupid as well for making the same mistake as the other guy.

[MRKetter81]

@jordanbokma Yeah and it's still ad hominem.

[kisstheclowns]

We already went through this, you can't derive morality from animals or else murder and rape would be o.k. under natural selection and propagation of the species. Please read again my discussion on this. Its pretty basic shit.

[ALogicalConstruct]

YOu mean that humans act like animals? No shit, i know from out previous conversations that you cannot see past your christian worldview, you are in that logical blackhole i talked about.

[ALogicalConstruct]

Humans murder and rape too, that doesn't mean that it is condusive to society functioning, and i am not saying morality is genetic i am saying it is a societal construct. You always create straw men, i assume it is because you are stuck in your christian worldview. BUt ok, "basic shit" me up, lay it on me bucko.

[kisstheclowns]

Where is this in the Bible?...Because I actually HAVE studied it for years. Or are you speaking of the Qur'an-because there ARE verses like that in there.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then please refrain from spouting your groundless hostilities and stop wasting the efforts of your fingers. It's just boring.