In my previous article I pointed out the extreme problems in confronting and debating religious believers, in terms of both language and logic. In the first case, believers (since they are objectively always at a disadvantage in any rational argument) always aggressively seek to deform the meaning of words used to their own ends.
This is perfectly exemplified in the latest, most recent posts (on Pastor Mike's Blog) attacking me (mainly by a poster named 'Rene') where the definition of "atheist" is challenged.
The definition I gave in at least one comment on the (innominate) site, was based on a definition I had provided in an issue of The Mensa Bulletin (March, 1994):
"Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition”
What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. making a statement 'There is no god', but rather simply passively withholding belief/acceptance in a statement already made. Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the absence of belief in it. No more - no less.
What I mean by the "ontological atheist" is one who derives his or her atheism from the basis of ontology. The type of atheist here is also known as an implicit atheist.
However, it appears this form of atheist causes too much mental consternation for the likes of Rene. For he keeps insisting it is a "cop out" or "cowardly" for not actually "denying God".
But, as I have tried to point out to his pedestrian brain, one does not deny that for which the existence hasn't been shown anyway. And I provided Rene the basis to do this, by giving the necessary and sufficient conditions for ths existence of his deity. But, up to now, he has skirted this, opting to come after my use of precision terms (and if words are not precise, how can thought be?) as "exercises in semantic nonsense".
In fact not. These terms are well agreed upon. One of the best articulations is by Austin Cline:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
Another definition has been given by George Smith(which Rene invokes to assert my own definition is "poor" - evidently unaware that Smith merely has provided his own interpretation not necessarily agreed upon by all):
"the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"
But I have a few quibbles about it. I would change that to read: "the absence of any theistic belief or emotional, intellectual investment in such - based on the absence of any ontology provided by theistic believers. Thus, implicit atheism entails a conscious appreciation that theism has no ontological basis, and is rejected on that basis".
Note: I did not say the underlying entity ('God') is rejected-denied, but rather theistic belief.
There is an easy reason for this: because if no god believer provides a definition for his entity then we cannot know what manner of 'divinity' he is talking about. (This is especially important because otherwise we have to assume all god believers accept the same divinity, which I am sure they would object to).
So, unable to accept or process my very exact language, Rene adopts the only tack available, to attack my language - as opposed to rectifying his native obtuseness. Belligerently clasping on to Smith's (incomplete definition) and his own obdurate tone-deaf stance, he then has the temerity to ask me:
"Phil are you a child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues, but you are still unaware of them or are you a man [who attended Christian College for three years] unacquainted with theism? "
And this alas, merely exposes poor Rene as a hopeless, desperate dolt. He has already shown he can't process nuance, in definitions, and now uses my early attendance at a Catholic university to try to impute a kind of infantilism to me, which actually he is projecting as a trait of himself.
Indeed, this is evident in his next remark:
"You again want to redefine your atheistic position from active denial to passive denial".
Again, disclosing the impossibility and futility of debating Xtians. (Okay, at least a certain type of Christian for whom logic and reason are not facile skills) Here he errs by referring to active and passive denial, when there is no such thing. One either denies, or one does not deny. There is no "passive" aspect. There IS a passive withholding of acceptance and recognition of the claim made.
Rene's Neolithic and neonatal (childish) brain appears inured to processing that "denial" is not germane if the entity is regarded as redundant, which it would be if no ontological basis (e.g. necessary and sufficient conditions) has been shown for it. Thus, no serious person in his right mind goes about denying elves, tooth fairies, or flying spaghetti monsters. Denial is unnecessary because it pre-supposes a tacit existence ALREADY there. But if no one has presented me with the n-s conditions for fairies, it is superfluous for me to "deny" them. Denial embodies the subtext that in the back of my mind I suspect they really exist. But I do not. I act and conduct my affairs as if they DO not exist. In other words, the entity is redundant to physical reality. And the claimants have not demonstrated its inclusion is justified.
Now granted this can be a subtle difference, and perhaps too subtle for a coarse, neolithically-fragmented 3 pounds of Rene-based protoplasm, conditioned to think simply in black and white (either-or) terms. But one does not concede to a primitive accusation here merely because his opponent's brain is resoundingly primitive and unable to parse critical differences. Such is the case with Rene.
This error is then compounded by his resort to false analogy, a violation of logic. (And we won't even begin to belabor the incessant and ongoing logical violation known as "affirming the consequent" or making the statement that something exists prior to showing it exists!)
An excellent insight into Christian illogic (of the form peculiar to fundies) is evident in Rene's next remark:
"It is interesting that atheists assert that atheism is not a religion but total absence of belief. This is like saying that black [which is the defined as the total absence of color], not a color."
In fact here he makes a common logical error (driving the false analogy). That is in conflating a belief (or non-belief) in a God with holding or rejecting a religion. This has just come to the fore recently with a detailed survey finding that 15% of Americans are not affiliated with any religion. HOWEVER, many of those interviewed made it abundantly clear that this didn't mean they rejected God belief, only that they rejected being associated with a religion! Thus, it is clearly possible to be religion-LESS and hold a God-belief. In an inverse sense, it is possible to be religion-LESS and God-less! (Which the survey also shows, since the number of atheists doubled and they are also a subset of those WITHOUT religious affiliation)
The sterile (and self-defeating) ploy of comparing a color like 'black' to the condition of (simply) godless atheism is particularly egregious. Here, Rene conflates the use and medium of scientific definitions, with cultural or cosmetic ones. Obviously, for the latter group - black IS a color, since once can manufacture clothes, etc. of that color. One does not have to appeal to scientific journals to access "black"! However, that still does not obviate or remove the fact that in color spectra terms (based on what we can obtain using a laboratory spectrograph, say) 'black' IS an absence of color. (E.g. there is no wavelength or range of such in the electro-magnetic spectrum that allows the identification of 'black')
Rene then goes on:
"It is common practice throughout the world that black is a color regardless of the technical definition. Likewise atheism is a religion."
And here his brain is unable to process the simple and basic fact that a scientific definition is not necessarily the same as a cultural one. (And alas, his whole argument's validation critically depends on them being one and the same!)
But in science, since lab spectra disclose no 'black' it IS an absence of color. But that doesn't mean a cultural value for black (as a fashion) doesn't exist, nor that the latter's use and medium nullfies the scientific definition. Again, we behold the limits of his neolithic brain. The flat conclusion that 'likewise atheism is a religion' is then merely a hollow non sequitur, uttered to confirm his nonsensical brand of logic. Or is it illogic?
But as we saw, even in the recent religious affiliation survey Rene is proven wrong, since its results make clear that those who claim religions do NOT include atheists A(and atheists are ipso facto included in the sub-group without religious affiliation). Rene would actually have done slightly better by insisting atheism was a 'belief' (actually a negative belief) because at least then he wouldn't come off as an abject moron.
Rene, not to allow anyone think he's achieved brilliance at the last moment then writes:
"By the way, the US Federal Court of Appeals ruled atheism as a religion"
Which, of course, is neither here nor there. U.S. courts make tons of rulings each year, but that doesn't mean they are each engraved in stone. And while this court may well have ruled atheism a "religion" to make its legal argument more transparent, it still doesn't alter the fact atheism is NOT a religion.
For one thing it turns the very meaning and basis of religion on its head. We know all religions embody centralized beliefs or dogmas that issue from some sacred scripture or a body of theology based on scriptural interpretations.. Atheism has none of these, since there are no central propositions or beliefs with which all atheists agree.
Second, atheists make no positive claims for any transcendent existent that requires their worship or obeisance. They simply acknowledge no god or entity with which to build a religion in other words. Third, atheists maintain no sacred works, scriptures, or ancient artifacts, from which their “truths” are extracted.
They have no analog to a Bible, Qu’ran, Talmud or anything remotely similar. Instead, atheists pursue objective truth via open inquiry predicated on current science, which may provide fewer certainties or answers than if they merely placed their faith in a book.
Fourth, atheists convene no regular communal rituals, services or ceremonies to honor, or propitiate any entity. By contrast, the centerpiece of 99.99 percent of religions is precisely some social ritual, for the purpose of assembling together like-minded believers toward a common goal. Moreover, their churches, synagogues, temples etc. dot the landscape, taking up room that could be used to house the homeless in each respective area or locale.
Perhaps most importantly, there is no "acceptance" of atheist principles from any “congregation” since there’s no homogeneous congregation to bestow it. Atheists often disagree on as many things as they agree on, precisely because no formal coda exists to fix beliefs within a uniform dogma.
That said, let us look at Rene's last remark - again woefully missing the mark, and showing once again the futility of exchanges with certain dead-heads of the fundie persuasion:
"Accordingly, he does not say, 'I do not believe a deity exists', but rather prefers to say, “I choose to withhold my belief that a deity exists.” He claims there is a big difference between the two."
Here again, Rene's own neolithic and unnuanced language does him in. If I say the first statement, I am committed to a position of negative belief, e.g. disbelief. We need only go back to my Mensa Bulletin definition and the key words, here highlighted for his benefit:
"the atheist absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim "
What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. making a statement 'There is no god', but rather simply passively withholding any intellectual acknowledgment of committment or acceptance in a statement already made. Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the absence of belief in it. No more - no less.
But now fully in the realm of folly, Rene cannot help himself when he blurts:
"To demonstrate this, all one needs to do is just invert the argument; is the assertion 'I believe a deity exists' any different from the assertion 'I choose to confirm my belief that a deity exists'? "
But, of course, readers will clearly see this isn't what my definition stated. Nor is it relevant to what has already been given. So here, once again, we behold Rene making an irrelevant pitch with an egregious example.
And we let him have his last say:
"Surely, the semantic value of such a distinction is zero, and so is the cowardly position of implicit atheism taken by a rational and educated adult."
To which I say: the semantic value of your twisted version of MY definition may be zero to you, but the RATIONAL value of my own definition(see my own words in my definition of implicit atheism from the Mensa Bulletin) is substantial to me. The reason is that it allows an exactitude and latitude for nuanced capacity of thought which your 'black-white' - either-or demands cannot permit. But if I capitulated to your demands, I would become as neolithically-primitively minded as you are.
Surely, the mark of a truly educated adult is to strive for maximal thought expression via exactness and attention to meaning, not descend to the minimum or base quantum allowed. So, it is no surprise that you see my rejection of your lowest common denominator methods and definitions as unacceptable.
As for "cowardly position", hardly! Not after having put myself out there with two books on atheism and Materialism. What you interpret as 'cowardice' here is really the inability of your own truncated intellect to argue at the level required to make cogent points.
But this is understandable, since your fundyism only teaches and drills you on the basis of cant and doctrine, not critical thought.
Thus again, we see why it is futile to debate hard core religious believers. Debate with Rene is clearly futile because he remains ensconced in primitive reasoning skills and resorting to deforming language to his own ends....since all other options for advancement of his claims are foreclosed. One step could easily be achieved if he would only provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for his deity's existence. But he can't. And it ought to be self-evident why he can't.
24 comments:
I have been waiting anxiously for Phil’s response to my last post. To my disappointment it seems Phil, who loves to portray himself as an educated man, decided to avoid me and now post his insults on his own blog without notifying me. A man of honor affords his opponent common courtesy by publishing where it can be answered, and has the culture and upbringing to be able to express himself without insulting his opponent. Regardless I have heard worst and for the benefit of others will answer the questions raised.
In response to Phil
Phil writes on the subject of worldview stating that not everyone poses one.
“Not strictly true! I know many people who lack any worldview because they do not philosophize. They accept reality as is, without imposing any template of their own. This may be hard for Rene's brain to process, but is true nonetheless.”
A world view is not what one sees, but what one sees with, it the lenses that one sees the world through. It is the individual’s unique perspective based on their belief, from which they see and interpret the world. One does not normally think about it because it is a pre-reflective thing. What an infant or Phil perceives is primarily dependent on their mind. So Phil and the infant do not see what there is in the reality before them, rather they understand reality through the structures inherent in their individual minds. They see what they see and understand what they understand. Nonetheless each individual’s worldview is unique to them, and they only hold it in common with other because they are alike.
Phil labors on.
“First part is true, of course, and (to an extent) so is the second. BUT, Buddhism (as a religion) espouses NO world view, and atheism has NO uniform world view. If you ask 1000 atheists for their "world views" you will obtain 1000 different answers. Thus, there is no single standard. Hence, no defining world view that can be applied to all atheists.”
You have not shown it is a religion. It is in fact no more a religion than the refusal to believe astrology. You refuse to accept astrology and you reject it. You therefore deny it. Does that make you an astrologist? No, it does not.”
It is the same thing when saying an atheist disbelieves a god, to say that the atheist is still a religionist. That is pure asinine absurdity.
Again Phil is wrong, Buddhism has a worldview and I quote from them.
“The Universe (and all that is in it ) is ordered by impartial, unchanging laws. These laws have been operating throughout all time into the infinite past and will continue to operate into the infinite future. There never was a first beginning, and there never will be a final end. The Buddha further said that there are at least a billion other world-sun systems like our own, and as these grow old and die out new solar systems evolve and come into being. Yet unlike the laws of physics and chemistry, the course of events is not a blind matter of chance. Buddhism regards the Universe as a harmoniously functioning whole with a unity behind its diversity. Man was created by the laws of nature; the world was not created for man.”
If I was to question 1000 Christians on the subject of the age of the earth, the tribulation, whether Jesus was crucified on Wed, Thurs, or Fri, and so forth I will get different answers. And it is plainly evident by our different denominations. What Phil fails to understand is that unity does not have to be uniformity. What is important is that we know Jesus Christ in our heart.
The atheists do lack uniformity based on their individual worldviews but they do have unity when it comes to their denial of Deity, their view of humanity as a complex form of matter, their view of humanity’s problem as superstition and irrational thinking, their view humanity’s solution as applying rational thinking to the problems, and finally their view of the afterlife as the person ceases to exist.
It is interesting that atheists assert that atheism is not a religion but total absence of belief. This is like saying that black [which is the defined as the total absence of color], not a color. It is common practice throughout the world that black is a color regardless of the technical definition. Likewise atheism is a religion. By the way Phil, the US Federal Court of Appeals ruled atheism as a religion.
And Phil continues:
The implicit atheist position is simply to withhold belief in a deity. This withholding of belief, however, certainly does not make it incumbent upon the atheist to provide a comprehensive theory of how the cosmos came to be. No - all the atheist is asserting is his rejection of the theistic version that hinges on a supernatural creation….
DOH! I refuse to acknowledge it because I am not that species (explicit) of atheist. Evidently, our mind-brain is too simple or primitive to be able to process the fact that there can be differing levels of unbelief (just like differing levels of belief).
Again, you are not getting it. I choose to withhold belief which is not the same as active denial. It is actually the more intelligent position because no one in his right mind wastes time denying that which hasn't been shown to exist in the first place.
Phil gives a poor definition of implicit vs. explicit atheism. These terms were first defined by George H. Smith in 1979 and I quote “"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Therefore according to Smith implicit atheism is and I quote “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" where as he defined explicit atheism as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it."
Phil are you a child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues, but you are still unaware of them or are you a man [who attended Christian College for three years] unacquainted with theism?
Phil again wants to redefine his atheistic position from active denial to passive denial. According to Phil he does not say, “I do not believe a deity exists”, and rather prefers to say, “I choose to withhold my belief that a deity exists.” He claims there is a big difference between the two. Fundamentally, this argument is nothing but semantic nonsense. It is not just the splitting of thin hairs or in Phil’s case the splitting of thin air. To demonstrate this, all one needs to do is just invert the argument; is the assertion "I believe a deity exists" any different from the assertion "I choose to confirm my belief that a deity exist”? Surely, the semantic value of such a distinction is zero, and so is the cowardly position of implicit atheism taken by a rational and educated adult.
Until we define our terms I find it illogical and a waste of resources to debate any other issue.
In His Service
Rene
For the benefit of those reading, here is my first posting that attracted Phil into a discussion with me.
First may we define our terms. The word Atheism comes literally from the Greek, negative alpha and theos [for God], therefore “negative God” or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute. Anyone who took philosophy 101 knows you cannot affirm a negative in the absolute. It is a logical contradiction. Therefore it is self defeating. It also breaks the rule of non contradiction by ascribing to itself a divine attribute while at the same time denying the existence of the Divine. Atheism not only denounces the existence of God, but by its own definition denounces the principle by which it criticizes the reality of God. To make an absolute statement in the negative is similar to saying that nowhere in the universe does there exist a flying spaghetti monster. For the atheist to make such a claim he must have unlimited knowledge of this universe. What the atheist is fundamentally saying is that he has infinite knowledge of this universe to affirm that there exist no being with infinite knowledge. It is self defeating.
Atheism is a religion and its promoters are its missionaries. Such as Burton Russell who spoke clearly, continually, and with conviction about reality, humanity [what is wrong and what is needed for a better life], and death [where there is no ultimate hope]. Therefore it is a worldview. Since Atheism denies the existence of God it does embrace and defend as sacred any theory that attempts to disprove God. It holds such men as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Charles Darwin and many others worthy of their attention and following. And the atrocities of the past two centuries prove that their ideas had consequences.
Now if atheism is true then ultimately there is no moral law in this universe. As a personal philosophy of live it offers no ultimate hope and death is the end of personal existence. Since there is no reference point for the meaning of life there is a complete loss of meaning. And ultimately if the atheist is wrong he has made an unreasonable commitment, for when he dies and finds out that God does exists there is no chance for recovery. But with God you have these and more.
Or are you truly an agnostic who with the evidence, philosophy, and data you have studied, has come to the conclusion that the existence of God cannot be proven with certainty. Agnostic comes from the Greek, alpha the negative and ‘gnosis’ to know, which means “doesn’t know”. That is easy to defend, all you has to prove is that you don’t know.
In God’s perspective there are two types of people those who bend their knee to Him and say “Your will be done”, and those that refuse to bend their knee and say, “No, my will be done.” In the conclusion of things Jesus will honor your choice, either eternal existence with Him, or eternity without Him. Don’t make the mistake of experiencing a Godless eternity because you thought you were too good, for God’s forgiveness, atonement, redemption, and justification.
In His Service
Rene
Here is my second posting responding to Phil.
It seems there is a conflict between my definition of Atheism and Phil’s. There cannot be two versions of the truth.
So first before we start I would like to define our terms.
1. Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone’s knowledge of it.
2. Truth is transcultural; if something is true, it is true for all people, in all places, at all.
3. Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change.
4. Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
5. Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
6. All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear to be relative are really absolute.
Phil writes pertaining to the definition of atheism.
“NO, it does not. Writing as one who had to take Latin and Greek, it derives from the Greek: **a-theos* or '**without** God'.
In other words, absence of ....not negativa! This is a common error made by believers who again are het up to box atheism into a credo. It isn't! Let us elaborate further.”
Phil is referring to privative alpha or a- and for the benefit of those who have not taken a course in Greek negative alpha. Phil states that it is the ‘absence of’ not ‘negative’.
According to Wekpedia: “The privative a (also known as privative alpha or α privativum) is the prefix a- which expresses negation or absence.”
According to Hollister Adelbert Hamilton professor of Greek in his dissertation titled “Negative Greek Compounds” states, “ The meaning of the prefix is by no means merely privative, denoting the removal of that which was before possessed or the absence of that which is aimed at expected, but it is rather negative in the widest sense, running the whole gamut of possible shades of negation.”
. Therefore Webster is correct in the following definitions.
Atheist: One who believes that there is no deity.
Atheism: 1. The disbelief in the existence of deity.
2. The doctrine that there is no deity.
This is active negation no affirmation of the absence of.
Phil writes.
“What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. making a statement 'There is no god', but rather simply passively withholding belief/acceptance in a statement already made.”
Based on atheistic statements already made the atheist actively disbelieves in the existence of God. And passively withholding belief is nonsense. Either you are pregnant or not, alive or dead, choose to believe or not believe, passively withholding belief is trying to find middle ground where there is none.
Phil writes
“This generic definition of what atheism is, is precisely what accounts for the diverse economic-political backgrounds of atheists. The Atheist - to put it succinctly- absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition as I noted (A -THEOS). The error made by religionists is to interpret or misconstrue the "A" as opposition, as opposed to absence. This is where the prima facie error is made.”
As humans, we put our faith in the facts that we believe to be true, and function based on that perception. As humans, we put our faith in the facts which give us our perspective, {that is your unique selection and meaningful interpretation of your sensory data which you use to relate to everything and everyone around us}. From that perspective we get our feelings and our functions. Our functions give us our habits, our habits give us our personality, our personality gives us our character and our character gives us our destiny.
Our ethics, morals and values will always be based on our faith in the facts that they believe to be true. According to this equation our feeling and functions are based on our beliefs. Phil wants to bypass his beliefs and only present function absent of belief. Then what core of his belief? Why does the atheist not believe in Deity? Why does the atheist absolutely withhold investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim? Simple, because he actively denies the existence of God.
Phil writes
“Rene continues having already laid a foundation of definitional error which will lead him into logical error:
"or there is no God. It is not saying, “I do not think or believe there is a God”, rather it affirms the non existence of God. It affirms a negative in the absolute."
Nonsense! It "affirms" no negative at all. It affirms the absence of which is not the same thing. I can affirm here and now in my office the absence of 12 dimensional invisible elves. I need not also make an active statement or denial that they exist. This is where
Rene and his peers like Mike err.”
From the above evidence you can see the definitional error is Phil’s not mine. I have established that it affirms a negative not an absence. No let’s go to logic. We are not debating elves in your office; we are debating an infinite Being within and outside the entire universe. I can assure you that here an now there are no elves in my office, but does that statement also imply that nowhere in the universe does there exist an elf. Now if I say that there is absolutely no possibility or probability that an elf exist anywhere in the universe then I am making a negative statement in the absolute, and that is exactly what the atheist does if he wants to accept it or not.
Finally Phil states:
“Again, the onus is on YOU all to prove your god, not us to disprove it - since proving a negative is impossible.”
Is Phil finally defining atheism as negation and not absence?
Hopefully from the above you can see that I have no straw man and the previous posting holds it own. As to proving God I do not know when enough will be enough. Atheist want every question answered before they decide. There has been overwhelming evidence for the existence of God. What seems to be the problem is atheist have a personal reason not to accept God outside of logic and science.
Third posting
Again I find myself responding to insignificant items brought up by my rivals, while the real issues are being ignored. For the benefit of others I find myself obligated to answer. It amazes me how the atheist sidesteps the real questions and attacks the most insignificant part of the believer’s argument. Phil tried to pick apart my first post by arguing the definition of privative alpha, as the starting point in his attempt to unravel my argument. In response to my second post he questions my use of Wiki. I know well that Wiki is not considered a reliable resource, but all we are doing is defining a prefix, not discussing quantum physics or deep philosophical thoughts.
Therefore to put these rebuttal to rest I will submit the following And note Wiki’s definition does supports Phil’s argument.
Webster’s Dictionary.
privative alpha: the prefix a- or an- expressing negation in Greek and in English.
And again I will quote
Hollister Adelbert Hamilton professor of Greek in his dissertation titled “Negative Greek Compounds” states, “ The meaning of the prefix is by no means merely privative, denoting the removal of that which was before possessed or the absence of that which is aimed at expected, but it is rather negative in the widest sense, running the whole gamut of possible shades of negation.”
Note the prefix can carry a minor meaning of absence or without [and only under certain conditions], and the major or encompassing meaning of negative. If Phil wants to follow in the footsteps of false religions and misinterpret a word to fit is doctrine, shame on him because he is not seeking truth from reality. Instead he is trying to get reality to conform to his truth. Tirelessly I submit the following.
The apostle Paul
The apostle Paul used privative alpha with certain words to indicate what God is by declaring what God is not. Note the prefix is described as negative not absence.
God Is Incorruptible/ Immortal
Paul declares, “And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. 1:23--KJV).
The word of interest in this text is uncorruptible or incorruptible. The Greek word is aphthartou from aphthartos. It is formed using a, negative and phtheirō meaning “to destroy by means of corrupting and so bringing into a worse state” (W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, I, 242).
Another word for immortal, applied to God, is athanasia. This word is found in I Tim.
6:16. It is formed with a, negative and thanatos meaning death. It literally means deathlessness.(Vine, II, 249).
Lenski states, “The very word athanasia is, however, derived from the negative
human condition called death. He (God,--DS) is the opposite to us. The more positive
designation would be “life,” but this in the absolute sense”
(Interpretation of Colossians,Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 725).
God Is Invisible
In I Tim. 1:17, Paul uses the word aorataō(i) which is translated invisible. This word
expresses the fact that God cannot be seen, i.e. He is invisible (Thayer, 53). It is formed using a, negative and horaō meaning to see (Vine, II, 269).
Aoratos is an adjectival form occurring five times in the New Testament. I Tim. 1:17 and Heb. 11:27 refer to the invisible God.
God is Unsearchable
In Romans 11:33, Paul uses the word anexeraunēta from anexereunētos meaning
unsearchable, or inscrutable (Wigram, 28). Vine breaks this word down into its various parts: a,negative; n, euphonic, ex (ek), out, eraunaō to search, examine, (Vine, IV, 174).
God Is Unapproachable
In I Tim. 6:16, Paul writes, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no
man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.” The Greek word aprositon means unapproachable. It is formed using a, negative and an adjective formed from proseimi meaning to go to (Vine, I, 71).
God Is Unchangeable
The Greek word ametathetos is found in Hebrews 6:17 and 18. The word is formed with
a, negative and metatithēmi, to change (Vine, II, 249).
Phil defends his position as being a simple “lack of a god-belief” and not as a “denial of the existence of God.” By claiming to affirm only a passive lack of belief, and by denying that he actively asserts the nonexistence of God, Phil conveniently absolves himself from having to defend his position. Is Phil asserting that God does not exist or is he simply not taking a position? Phil quotes the Oxford English Dictionary to support his position. Try to follow the logical argument of passive atheism.
"a" = no/not/without
"theism" = god-belief
therefore:
"atheism" = without god-belief.
This kind of argument is certainly a possible way of arriving at a definition for a word which has been derived from another language, but other times it can be in error and reflect a misunderstanding of the source-language. In Phil’s case he has a misunderstanding and results in presenting an argument that is neither linguistically sound nor historically correct.
It should be understood that this method of determining the meaning of a word works well when a word is created using the roots and/or particles of another language, but when the word is related by descent to an ancestral language it is that primary language's usage which always takes precedence in determining its meaning in the secondary language.
Phil is right privative alpha can mean “without” in the passive sense and when related to passive verbs, but when applied to Greek noun theos it conveys the active sense of "reversal of essence" or "opposite of condition" or "inversion of meaning." Therefore it means the bipolar opposite of the root word, or negative of theos. So if “theism” is the belief in deities, then logically “atheism” is the belief that they do not exist. Phil please note the place of the negative particle: when applied to nouns it should always be linked with the object [that which is being denied]. It is a matter of simple Greek grammar, atheos is one that denies the existence of deity, and since “atheism" and "atheist" are derived from this noun, their meaning in English should follow the Greek. Phil has a misunderstanding of Greek morphology by stating that the act of believing is being negated and not the existence of God.
While Phil and his friends can define their identity as they wish, their analysis of the construction of the word “atheism” as being passive is linguistically invalid.
True, the sense of passive negation is, indeed, one which privative alpha can convey; however, that particular sense is foreign to the grammar and historical usage of the noun atheos. Privative alpha must be applied to the Greek word theos, not to the English word "theism," thus reflecting the negation of the object, and passive negation is not affirmed in the historic usage of atheos.
. The athiest continued use and re-interpretation of a word which linguistically means "active denial of the theistic postulate" is confusing. They should change the term which they use for their position, rather than attempt to change the lexical meaning of an ancient, long-established word.
Like most atheist Phil prefers to take the passive position to avoid having to carry the burden of proof for his anti-theistic position. He wants to deny the existence of God while at the some time denying he has the burden of proof, and shifts the burden onto the Christian. Note how Phil refuses to provide evidence or even the facts he believes to be true while criticizing Mike and I for failing to do the same. We call this hypocrisy.
I hope this helps to clarify my first post where my presentation proves that the atheist position is illogical and self defeating. If Phil continues to identify himself as an atheist it is based on his personal convictions rather than logic.
I think most of our readers will agree with me that the issue of privative a has been exhausted enough.
On the topic of word view Phil writes.
NO, NO AND NO!!!! A "worldview" is NOT a religion!!!! THIS is exactly why it is impossible to conduct a productive debate with you all because you incessantly conflate and obscure words, definitions and terms (as your "brother" Rene with atheist)
You corrupt all debates by the misuse of terms and then render them useless. Look, a WORLDVIEW is a WORLDVIEW. For example, the worldview of neo-liberal capitalism which extols the free market is just that - NOT a religion.
If we continue to confuse worldviews and religions and use these terms interchangeably then we confuse and corrupt thought and make all languages more debased and impoverished than it is.
BUT I am thankful to Mike for showing in the clearest terms yet why debates are impossible and indeed futile with him so long as he engages in these tactics.
Phil trashes Mike because he states that atheism is not a worldview, and gives his reason. What he lacks to say is that everyone has a world view, and not every world view is a religion, but all religions are worldviews; since atheism is a religion therefore atheism is a worldview.
Phil has to question himself is he an atheist or agnostic. He refuses to acknowledge that he denies the existence of God but rather picks a passive position by choosing not to believe. It is an illogical and cowardly position.
Finally it is a waste of time debating quantum physics, Darwin, Einstein, and the other authors Phil quotes. Don’t debate the creation rather debate the Creator.
In His Service
Rene
Rene writes:
"To my disappointment it seems Phil, who loves to portray himself as an educated man, decided to avoid me and now post his insults on his own blog without notifying me. "
What ignorant blather! YOU WERE notified, my friend. I sent an e-mail to "Pastor Mike" as soon as my last blog entry was posted. No one was "avoiding you" - obviously since you are posting comments here, so you DID find out. I cannot help it if Mike delayed in notifying you. But he was told as soon as the blog entry was made.
As for my own blog - yes - because as I told my Pastor brother, I no longer choose to post at his hatefest site, but on my own blog. Also, unlike Mike, I allow full free expression, no artificial censoring or "engagement rules" here. So anything goes as long as it isn't psychotic.
Rene spiels on:
"A man of honor affords his opponent common courtesy by and has the culture and upbringing to be able to express himself without insulting his opponent."
You were not insulted beyond what you deserved because of your demonstrated inability to: a) process simple facts, b) use basic logic and c) meet the terms and demands of the debate.
In the last case, you continue to place the onus and burden of "disproof" on me when the burden of proof is fully on you. To provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of your god. Up to now you have dodged this even as you continue to call me "cowardly" - which term I regard as the most despicable insult of all.
"Regardless I have heard worst and for the benefit of others will answer the questions raised. "
Well you may hear even worse yet, if you remain on this blog- because as I said I don't censor.
In addition, I will posting another blog entry dealing with most of the nonsense you have commented on that is not redundant (most of it is).
What the hell is going on with this Rene asshole? Doesn't he understand plain english? Obviously he knows nothing of following rules of discussion, debate, and can't even answer a simple question put to him by Phil.
After reading Phil's explanation of what is required of these type of Evangelical nuts to prove, over and over, about their gods existance, this Rene character has never once proved anything. He keeps throwing the same bullshit back at Phil to prove a negative.
Phil tells him over and over until he can prove something or some entity exists an Atheist can't even comment on it.
Rene you screwhead, get your head out of your ass for once and learn how to read and understand a question put to you. You sound like a goddam broken record with a mouth full of shit. You babble on like all the other Evangelical assholes of the world. No wonder they all got voted out or quit in the presidential election. Don't you nutcases understand, you've ruined this country and now the majority is taking it back. It'll take years to get this country back on track.
Rene further writes:
"Phil trashes Mike because he states that atheism is not a worldview, and gives his reason."
Wrong! I did not "trash" Mike, I simply corrected his error in imputing a worldview to atheism. As I pointed out, a worldview assigned generically to ONE group or demographic assumes that it can be universally applied. However, as I noted, if you ask 1000 atheists they will give differing world views.
For example, some atheists will subscribe to the Materialist worldview, but not all. This view declares that the material or natural universe is the only one there is. Mainly, because it is the only one science has shown can exist.
However, other atheists will not emrace strict materialism but rather panpsychism, which attributes a mindlike character to all constituents of material things. Thereby, the worldview of panpsychism is distinguished from pure materialism.
Materialism in itself is not ONE unified worldview. The Democritean Materialist atheists, for example, will predicate their worldview on Demokritos' purely atomic configuration of the cosmos. Meanwhile, Quantum Physicalists will predicate it on a form of quantum, indeterminate and acausal cosmos.
Another group of atheist will conform to the worldview of the analytical behaviorist. This archetype argues that, in talking about the mind, one is not talking about an actual entity, whether the brain or an immaterial soul, but, rather, one is somehow talking about the way in which people would behave in various circumstances.
My point again, is that Rene lacks the educational background to appredciate nuance, hence he is always constrained to argue in either-or terms. He cannot see that "A worldview" doesn't uniformly apply to atheists because he lacks the educational basis to realize that there are many fundamental philosophies that underscore atheism.
Again, this merely proves my point that it is futile to argue with the died in the wool believer.
Rene goes on, undeterred:
"What he lacks to say is that everyone has a world view, and not every world view is a religion, but all religions are worldviews;"
Of course, not every world view is a religion. This is obvious. People can also maintain beliefs or unbelief independent of world views OR religions, as the latest Pew religion survey research shows.
Whether all religions are world views is debatable. Some forms of Buddhism are (e.g. Mahayana) but others are not. (Though I suppose if Rene argues hard enough he can claim that 'nothingness' is a world view)
But then all debates become corrupted (and henc futile) by the misuse of terms - which are thereby rendered useless.
If we continue to confuse worldviews and religions and use these terms interchangeably then we confuse and corrupt thought and make all languages more debased and impoverished than it is.
Rene continues:
"since atheism is a religion therefore atheism is a worldview. "
Again, this claim was demolished in my recent blog entry ('The Futility of Debating Religious Believers - 2') I noted how an why atheism cannot be a religion, and the latest religion survey makes that point even more voluminously for me - since it clearly separates out those who have their own beliefs or unbelief - from religious affiliation.
But Rene seems hidebound and determined not to let this canard go easily into the night. He would rather be a thousand times wrong, than change his mind - even when subjected to indisputable evidence that he is going the wrong way.
Rene goes on:
"Phil has to question himself is he an atheist or agnostic. He refuses to acknowledge that he denies the existence of God but rather picks a passive position by choosing not to believe."
Yes, Rene, and again my last entry shows the wisdom of this which you can't seem to process. As I noted therein:
"Denial" is not germane if the entity is regarded as redundant, which it would be if no ontological basis (e.g. necessary and sufficient conditions) has been shown for it.
Thus, no serious person in his right mind goes about denying elves, tooth fairies, or flying spaghetti monsters. Denial is unnecessary because it pre-supposes a tacit existence ALREADY there.
But if no one has presented me with the n-s conditions for fairies, it is superfluous for me to "deny" them. Denial embodies the subtext that in the back of my mind I suspect they really exist.
But I do not. I act and conduct my affairs as if they DO not exist. In other words, the entity is redundant to physical reality. And the claimants have not demonstrated its inclusion is justified."
NOW, laddie, the ball is in YOUR court! Give me the necessary and sufficient conditions for your god's existence or admit you are invested in a baseless fantasy. (For which, as I noted, no denial is needed)
Rene again:
"It is an illogical and cowardly position. "
No, as I shiowed (above) it is totally logical. What IS cowardly is your continued refusal to provide even minimal evidence that yoru god exists. This would be via the n-s conditions I have asked for nearly a dozen times. By continuing to dodge this, and refusing to give them, you demonstrate you are an intellectual coward, capable of a lot of effusive blather and rhetoric but who in the end can't substantiate any of his claims.
He is clinging to a god of the wisps. He writes 'in his service' after his comments, but he's in the service of a phantom.
Rene again:
"Finally it is a waste of time debating quantum physics, Darwin, Einstein, and the other authors Phil quotes. Don’t debate the creation rather debate the Creator. "
There is NOTHING to debate, there pallie! Again, you continue to flee from providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist. So what are we to think? Well, that you are unable to give them because this 'creator' exists only as figment of your imagination.
But maybe we can assit Rene's brain to its house in order and cease fleeing from our rational demands. Evidently he has never heard of necessary or sufficient conditions before.
For example, a NECESSARY condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be the pre-existence of a hydrogen (neutral) gas cloud.
The SUFFICIENT condition would be the proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. In this case, the star’s radiation causes the hydrogen atoms in the nebula to become excited – cause electrons to jump to higher energy levels- then go to lower with the emission of photons)
NOW - Rene- WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR YOUR 'CREATOR' WHICH YOU INSIST WE MUST DEBATE?
And don't weasel out this time!
Hey Phil, you avoided me when you purposely posted on this blog and avoided me on the one we were using. Mike did not tell me anything, I found you out myself. You could have posted on both. Character is what you do when no one is watching. Shifting the blame to Mike is childish. Grow up, take responsibility for your actions, and don't hide. Seems you have a history of running from the issue. If you really are educated as you present yourself you should be able to express yourself without mud slinging. And you very well know the rules of engagement on Mike’s blog, which do not censor the topic but does the language and hateful remarks. As anyone can see form the evidence above you cannot even define your terms. Why should I debate Athiesm with someone who does not know the definition of it, and now attempts to redefine it? Why should I debate the more complex issues with you, when you cannot grasp simple concepts, or even understand how to define a word?
Good luck Phil
Yabba yabba..
I stated in clear and concise ENGLISH (I presume your first language) that I would not be posting any more on Mike's blog. More than once I said "this is my LAST post". (I only added the last addendum post to reply to your definitional codswallop, because Mike never posted the earlier reply)
On MY blog I have more control over what I post, and don't have to wait on Mike to process it, or worse, omit the posting at all. Further all posts are immediate.
If you found the blog independent of Mike's information good for you! But understand no one was "hiding" anything, and I was under no obligation to post anything further on Pastor Mike's hate site havimng already made my intentions clear that I wouldn't be posting or commenting there any more. If that annoys you or doesn't satisfy ...tough.
Again, YOU are the intellectual coward and a dishonorable one for not even complying with the basic demands of debate. Until you provide the necessary and sufficient conditions (see also my latest entry) that will remain so.
Rene wrote:
"As anyone can see form the evidence above you cannot even define your terms. "
Rene I more than defined my terms. I did it with exactness and logic, something you still fail to follow. The true fact here is that it is YOU who refuses to accept the definition because it means it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate your entity's existence.
Any issue of belief, non-belief, withholding of belief is all PREMATURE unless you first provide an ontology for the God you are claiming exists. This is entirely independent of what a Webster's dictionary says (though I did cite an Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary to show how Webster's was deficient)
Read my latest blog entry to see what is required of YOU- before we can move on.
Rene again:
"Why should I debate Athiesm with someone who does not know the definition of it, and now attempts to redefine it?"
No, WHY should I debate THEISM with someone who is so educationally deficient he can't even define his GOD or show an ontological basis for it? Who can't or won't present the necessary and sufficient conditions for it?
The issue here again, is NOT about defining atheism (which is simply the absence of belief in a god already claimed) but THEISM and the "GOD" behind it.
If you cannot even define your God (apart from bible quotes) or present the n-s conditions for its existence, then you are at the stage of a kindergartner in terms of presenting arguments. Don't forget here that I have had three years of philosophy and theology at a Catholic university. I have been arojnd the block before you could say, so know what is required in basic debates. YOU, sir, have not met them.
"Why should I debate the more complex issues with you, when you cannot grasp simple concepts, or even understand how to define a word?"
Complex issues??? YOU are a laugh! It is you who can't even present the BASIC answers in terms of giving a fundamental definition of his god! Nor have you have given the sufficient reason to accept it or the n-s conditions for it to exist (critical since we need them to isolate it from all other versions of deity)
The truth is (as I ought to have suspected) I am left to debate with a child, a "neonate" in terms of processing complex arguments. Someone who is comfortable copying and pasting from google or wiki but unable to stand on his own two intellectual feet and deliver the goods.
It is clear from this you have no grasp, zero ...of what either a ncecessary or sufficient condition is as you continually avoid it though you know it is the core of everything. If you can't give them, you are talking about belief or unbelief in nothing, zero, zilch, nada.
All of which (AGAIN!) shows that it is futile to debate believers.
They will always avoid the base intellectual demands and THEIR responsibility while projecting the fauls (usually based on irrelevant semantic defintions of atheism) on atheists.
Hasta la vista, Rene, and if you do come back, try to have some minimal intellectual resources and substance to show next time.
By that I mean giving those necessary and sufficient conditions instead of avoiding them.
Until you do all further exchange is futile.
Rene wrote:
“"Why should I debate the more complex issues with you, when you cannot grasp simple concepts, or even understand how to define a word?"
What an imbecile! Can’t you effing read, you little twit? It isn’t about defining atheism (which Phil admirably did already – a zillion times) but defining your “God” to show your theism is valid! If you can’t define your God you cannot then define your theism. If that is the case it’s irrelevant what Phil believes, or disbelieves or withholds in acceptance. Don’t you get that?
Phil also asked you about twenty times for the necessary and sufficient conditions for your God’s existence, why don’t you give them you little coward? Well, you won’t because you know in your heart of hearts it’s game over if you do. Phil wins because he will show those conditions are artificial and can be nullified since they also apply to physical beings and things.
You are an inept little fool and don’t even belong in the same arena. Just like Pastor Mike, all you dopes can do is to avoid the core issues and dredge up red herrings.
You wouldn’t know a complex issue or be able to argue one if it bit you in the ass, Rene.
Rene wrote:
"Now if atheism is true then ultimately there is no moral law in this universe. "
That has to be among the dumbest things I have ever ever read. This fool obviously thinks adherence to moral law depends on invisible gods but it doesn't.
In our culture, people are so accustomed to the idea of every
law having a lawmaker, every rule having an enforcer, every
institution having someone in authority, and so forth, that the
thought of something being otherwise has the ring of chaos to it.
As a result, when one lives one's life without reference to some
ultimate authority in regard to morals, one's values and
aspirations are thought to be arbitrary.
Unthinkingly, people often assume that the universe is run in
a fashion similar to human societies. They recognize that humans
are able to create order by creating laws and by establishing
means of enforcement. So, when they see order in the universe,
they imagine that this order had a similar humanlike source. This
anthropomorphic viewpoint is a product of the natural pride that
human beings take in their ability to put meaning into their
world. It is, ironically, a subtle recognition of the fact that
human beings are the actual source of values .
Anyone who makes the least effort knows humans make their own moral values like they do their laws. Rene is a moron.
He also wrote:
"As a personal philosophy of live it offers no ultimate hope and death is the end of personal existence. Since there is no reference point for the meaning of life there is a complete loss of meaning. "
See my remarks above, doofus. Humans are in control of creating the meaning in their lives as they are their moral values. They don't need an invisible being in the sky to do it for them. So, complete loss of meaning is only YOUR exaggeration.
Rene goes on like he's in a stupor:
"And ultimately if the atheist is wrong he has made an unreasonable commitment, for when he dies and finds out that God does exists there is no chance for recovery".
Actually, the guy changed the words here since he is copying this from the well -known Pascal's wager. If you make the wrong "bet" and you lose then you end up in Hell. So, always bet on God by believing in him and you win.
One problem though - by doing that you are sacrificing your own moral courage and copping to a belief out of fear, to save your supposed immortal hide. I want to know what kind of God will take that bet when it is done not out of genuine faith or belief, but FEAR.
This character Rene is really a turkey, and Copernicus really made mince meat out of him. It was like watching a baby get mauled by a Rotweiler.
He also claims:
"But with God you have these and more. "
Not really, since you haven't even shown that any God exists as Copernicus has demanded. Until you do that, any talk about what you have with God, or what God will give ou is empty baloney.
But you seem to be great at shoeveling that out!
Here's another gem I found from this boob Rene. He wrote:
"Phil gives a poor definition of implicit vs. explicit atheism. These terms were first defined by George H. Smith in 1979 and I quote “"The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." "
Obviously, Smith (who is not a 'god' and by no means the last word on atheist definitions) is talking about generic atheists. These can sometimes include implicit atheists, but that doesn't mean all implicit are generic.
And also the implicit-explicit versions of atheist were not "first defined" by Smith. They were first defined by Madalyn Murray O'Hair in her 1959 book, 'What is an Atheist?'
What Rene again demonstrates is not any innate ability to debate or argue but his (limited) ability to use google based on terms Copernicus already gave. Rene then googles these, dredges up previous information, and uses his limited brain capacity to try to inject them into any argument.
I put 'implicit atheism' into a google search field too and came up with Smith's 1979 defs. I could also use those in a way against Rene, but choose instead to use my own knowledge not rely on what someone else wrote.
It is clear that this character is intellectual small fry. Whatever other blog he is on isn't worth the time to drool on.
Over some five or six comments all he did is regurgitate original errors made, never addressing Copernicus' demands while substituting Google info for his own thoughts.
If this moron doesn't illustrate why (as Copernicus) says, it's futile to engage believers, I don't know what does.
Maybe things might change if we could get Rene a brain transplant.
For the benefit of others on this blog / site ? the following is from my I-Net Church :
ANSWERS TO THE ATHEISTS POSITION :
" There is no God "
This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since he cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God.
"I believe there is no God "
To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what do you base your choice: evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of the three?
If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
There can be no such evidence since evidence is physical in nature (evidence is an effect and/or result of something in reality). How could evidence disprove God's existence who is, by definition, the creator of reality and separate from it?
(I am defending the Christian God as revealed in the Bible).
Testimony is admissible in court as evidence, but no one can rightly testify that God does not exist.
If logic then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
Logic can be used to disprove theistic evidences that are presented. Negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
If there were a logical argument that proved that God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, that there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.
"There is no evidence for God "
This is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no evidence for God's existence necessitates that the person knows all possible evidences for God's existence. Since he cannot do this (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no evidence for God.
"I have not seen sufficient evidence for God's existence "
To say you haven't seen sufficient evidence for God's existence is a more intellectually honest position, but it is really a form of agnosticism which maintains that God is not known or knowable while admitting that the possibility of God's existence.
If a person has not seen sufficient evidence for God, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence and there might be sufficient evidence. This would mean that God may indeed exist and the person really is an agnostic concerning God and his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
" I lack belief in God "
To lack belief in God appears to be a defensive position since the assertive atheist positions are wrought with logical problems (shown above). If the atheist says he "lacks belief" in God, then it appears its goal is to maintain a position that is unattackable since then he has no position to attack.
The problem is that "lacking belief" in God is an intellectual position made by a choice to "lack belief." Therefore, it is a position since it is the result of a choice. Any position held, must have reasons or it is not a position. It would be nothing. The atheist who asserts that he lacks belief is asserting a position of lack of belief.
My dog lacks belief in God as does my computer. Are they also atheists? Therefore, simply lacking belief is not a sufficient statement since it can include animals and inanimate objects.
" I don't believe in God "
Is this a choice you have made? If so, why? What made you not believe in God?
Is there an intelligent reason that you do not believe in God? Can you please tell me what it is?
Naturalism is true; therefore, there is no need for God.
Naturalism is the belief that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. If all things were explainable through natural laws, it does not mean God does not exist since God is, by definition, outside of natural laws since He is the creator of them.
Some might say that if all things can be explained via natural laws, then it means there is no evidence for God.
But, can all things be explained via naturalism? No, because naturalism has not explained all phenomena known today, nor can we assert that all things in the future will be explained via naturalism because we do not know all phenomena that can and will occur. Therefore, it is not a fact that naturalism can explain all things. Therefore, God is not negated via naturalism.
ATHEISM ATTACKS ON THEISM :
Some might think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves. After all, if God doesn't exist then what's the big deal? Why not let the theists believe in God the way a child believes in the tooth fairy? To the atheist, neither exists. So why bother?
Even though many atheists don't care if people believe in God or not, others feel obligated to fight what I have often heard them label as "oppressive religious bigotry." To this end, many of them are active in politics, social groups, the internet, and even use lawsuits to change society into a more atheistic temperament. They often consider Christians as a threat to freedom, common sense, and a good life.
This kind of statement is quite common in atheist circles. It is inflammatory, illogical, and paranoid. Many atheists I've spoken , including my oldest brother , Phil , tell me that I cannot think logically, that I am deluded, and that I believe in myths. They tell me that I am bound by foolish antiquated beliefs and need to abandon my religious bigotry and become a 'free thinker' like them. In other words, they don't want me to think the way I do.
Additionally, after reading much atheist material and debating with them over the internet, I've discovered that they often use mockery of God, religious leaders, and the Bible as weapons to further their agenda. This isn't the case with all atheists, as I have had very good conversations with some of them, but ridiculing attitudes are surprisingly prevalent and strong. Character assassination, half-truths, and out-of-context Bible quotes are typical tools used by many of them in attempts to make Christianity look bad.
Now, I am not trying to dismantle the atheist position with a generic character attack aimed at them. I am only making on observation. In the majority of my dealings with atheists, I have encountered great arrogance, rudeness, and condescension. Atheists have told me that religion is only a giant con-game designed to get peoples' money, that clergymen are in business for themselves, and that I was mentally ill for believing in God. Following are some of their comments:
" This world is godless and without purpose . "
"I do not want to be bound to archaic mythologies. This is the 20th century."
"Christianity is an oppressive system used to control and manipulate people."
"Logic demands that religion be proven wrong."
"Christians should all be in mental wards."
"We are free thinkers and not bound by outdated and oppressive myths."
"Christians are sycophantic sheep."
Atheists often imply that reason is best used by them and not by Christians who, many say, need psychological help for believing in God. This condescending attitude is a fountain for derogatory comments. I have been called stupid, absurd, illogical, and a slave to my religion. I get the impression from atheists that they are so convinced they have the truth that no other options are available to them and that if you don't agree with them, you're not smart. Of course, they will deny this and say I am being ridiculous, but this is what I have observed -- right or wrong.
Consider some of the terms the atheists use to describe themselves: "Free thinkers," "Free from religion," "Rational," etc. They use these self-descriptive terms in juxtaposition to statements of Christians as religious bigots, losers, and brainwashers.
When I read statements like this I can't help but wonder which religion they are referring to. It can't be Christianity because the Bible teaches us to love God and love our fellow man. It teaches that the fear (Reverence )of the Lord is wisdom, that truthfulness is a way of life, and that eyewitness accounts of the miraculous is one of the evidences for its validity. Of course, the atheist would argue with all of this because he must, in spite of the facts. But still, if an atheist wants to attack religion in general and Christianity specifically, it should, at least, do so objectively. But this doesn't seem to be the hallmark of the atheistic movement; at least not from what I've seen so far.
Consider the following statements from Atheists.
"Godism is consistent with crime, cruelty, envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitableness."
"As long as religious purposes are served, ethics, inquiry and reason are abandoned."
Are these the statements of tolerance, impartiality, truth, and sound judgment? Not at all. It seems to me that if the atheists who authored the above quotes were in power, with their views of religion being cruel, evil, and unreasonable, would they then either imprison the 'offenders' or legislate complete and total annihilation of all things religious? Who would then be full of hatred, malice, and bigotry? It is something to ponder. Does atheism really teach freedom? No. It teaches bondage for its adherents and for those who disagree with it.
IS ATHEISM A 'RELIGION' ? YOU TELL ME !
Their Creed :
No God, anti God, Pro-homosexuality, anti-Christianity.
Atheism is a belief.
I know that many atheists will disagree with this, but the atheists gathered around a common belief of no God or lack of God and the need to increase what they perceive as separation of church and state in America.
Crisis
Created a problem and offered a solution. The problem was religious oppression in society with atheistic ideals as the solution.
Assemblies
Gathered in groups with meeting times. Now, atheists don't meet nearly as frequently as Christians do in their churches. But, they do have state meetings, national meetings, and regular gatherings.
Pulpit
The lectern from which speeches are made, their ideas are promoted, and their reasons for their belief system are validated.
Evangelistic
The atheists seek converts to their cause. They frequently speak about getting the idea of atheism out into society, and to move people away from theism.
Celebration over converts
Rejoice when converts to their belief system are announced. There is applause and excitement when there are announcements about people who had "come out of the closet" an announced their atheism.
Zealous for their cause
They want their cause and belief system expanded to the extent of changing America to reflect their thinking.
Exclusive
Only they have the truth. The atheists repeatedly speak of how atheism is the truth and that theists and deists are ignorant of facts and reason.
Us against them mentality
There is a profound description of the division between atheism and theism with the atheists being the ones who are defending themselves against the intrusive theists.
Concerned about public image
This is normal. They are very concerned with how they are perceived and want to change their negative reputation.
Lack of critical thinking
This is common everywhere. Though they think they are rational, by far most of their arguments and comments aren't .
Misrepresentation of opposing views
Again, another common trait among atheists . They have a common ideology, and see others as being less enlightened.
Money
They didn't have tithing, but there are plenty of things for sale. And, let's not forget to mention how they seek donations to help cover the costs of promoting atheism, paying speakers, renting facilities, etc.
I think it rather ironic that those who are against religion so much, are in actuality so religious themselves. Unfortunately, the atheists have gathered around non-belief and want that non-belief promoted in society. All I have to say is, eternity is a long time to be wrong.
IS ATHEISM VIABLE ?
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism. There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard -- especially since you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient. After all, how do you prove there is no God in the universe? How do you prove that in all places and all times, there is no God? You can't. Besides, if there were a proof of Gods non-existence, then atheists would be continually using it. But we don't hear of any such commonly held proof supporting atheism or denying Gods existence. The atheist position is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove since it is an attempt to prove a negative. Therefore, since there are no proofs for atheisms truth and there are no proofs that there is no God, the atheist must hold his position by faith.
Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible.
Faith, however, is not something atheists like to claim as the basis of adhering to atheism. Therefore, atheists must go on the attack and negate any evidences presented for Gods existence in order to give intellectual credence to their position. If they can create an evidential vacuum in which no theistic argument can survive, their position can be seen as more intellectually viable. It is in the negation of theistic proofs and evidences that atheism brings its self-justification to self-proclaimed life.
There is, however, only one way that atheism is intellectually defensible and that is in the abstract realm of simple possibility. In other words, it may be possible that there is no God. But, stating that something is possible doesn't mean that it is a reality or that it is wise to adopt the position. If I said it is possible that there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter, does that make it intellectually defensible or a position worth adopting merely because it is merely a possibility? Not at all. So, simply claiming a possibility based on nothing more than it being a possible option, no matter how remote, is not sufficient grounds for atheists to claim viability in their atheism. They must come up with more than "It is possible," or "There is no evidence for God," otherwise, there really must be an ice cream factory on Jupiter and the atheist should step up on the band wagon and start defending the position that Jupiterian ice cream exists.
At least we Christians have evidences for God's existence such as fulfilled biblical prophecy, Jesus' resurrection, the Transcendental Argument the entropy problem, etc.
But there is another problem for atheists. Refuting evidences for Gods existence does not prove atheism true anymore than refuting an eyewitness testimony of a marriage denies the reality of the marriage. Since atheism cannot be proven and since disproving evidences for God does not prove there is no God, atheists have a position that is intellectually indefensible. At best, atheists can only say that there are no convincing evidences for God so far presented. They cannot say there are no evidences for God because the atheist cannot know all evidences that possibly exist in the world. At best, the atheist can only say that the evidence so far presented has been insufficient. This logically means that there could be evidences presented in the future that will suffice. The atheist must acknowledge that there may indeed be a proof that has so far been undiscovered and that the existence of God is possible. This would make the atheist more of an agnostic since at best the atheist can only be skeptical of Gods existence.
This is why atheists need to attack Christianity. It is because Christianity makes very high claims concerning Gods existence which challenges their atheism and pokes holes in their vacuum. They like the vacuum. They like having the universe with only one god in it: themselves.
I nevertheless CONTINUE to pray for their Salvation -
Your in Christ ; Pastor Mike
Once again, Pastor Mike shows (like his apprentice, Rene) that he doesn't get it, and merely reinforces my point (made in three blog entries) why it is futile to debate god-ists, bible pounders and believers.
I am not going to wade through all his codswallop, since so much is repetitive, and has been addressed before, let me just focus on this particular remark wherein he claims:
"Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God, or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning God, etc. Which ever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position. "
As before this discloses a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. If the believers do not get this part right, then we may be sure there is little else they will get correct. (Or we may assume they are just having at us, playing little games with no serious intent)
The claim is that atheism denotes a "negative position" e.g. "not believing in a god, or actively believing there is no God". But the goodly pastor misses the point (not to mention the mark!)
Let me put this simply so even a sixth grader can get it: IN WHICH "GOD" DO WE NOT BELIEVE???
Up to now neither you nor your underling have graced us with: a) a basic definition of your God, or b) the necessary and sufficent conditions for its existence. Having not done this, it is impossible to posit a single or uniform "belief" or "non-belief" postion. It is like insisting I am an "anti-elvist" because I don't accept the claim for elves, or I am an anti-astrologist because I don't accept the claim that any configuration of stars guides our destinies. In other words, there is NO denial or active disbelief action required if something is a priori disposed of by the fact its claimants haven't shown existence.
Now, go back and read my next to last blog entry: 'Rene Says: God Is...God Is....God Is....and you will find the basic ontological principles for providing support for an existent.
Even in our extended e-mail debates this is something you singularly avoided so it isn't suprising you'd resort to it again now.
So again, the point is not what definition atheism has, but what BRAND of god belief (in theism) you are proferring and whether or not it is substantial or insubstantial (like elves and fairies).
This is important because even within Christianity many many types of deity are accepted. Without a definition and ontological basis offered, we cannot be sure of which of those we are supposed to be "negative" about.
For example, Catholics subscribe to a triune deity. The necessary condition is that aseity be the basis for each Person (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in the Tinity. The sufficient condition is that each Person can act independently but be relational (in its divine attributes) to each of the others.
One can then invoke a pro-nay position in terms of acceptance. The Catholics have fulfilled their duty in other words.
So have the Christian Universalists, those of the assorted Religious Science groups, Christian Science, Unity and Unitarians.
Thus, their deity exists as a universal presence in the universe BUT without personality. Thus, the necessary condition for its existence is a non-contingent energy that is incorruptible (e.g. Dirac vacuum state) and the sufficient condition is that it is a mediating consciousness which can enfold human consciousness at a higher dimensional level.
Again, the conditions are fufilled for anyone to invoke or use a pro-con position in response.
Even Christian Socinians have fulfilled their duty. (Their deity being limited by the most percipient consciousness available in the universe at any one time)
BUT you all (evangelicals) have not. And you expect us to take your seriously when you continue to avoid providing the goods? When all we can conclude from these tactics is that you have a comic deity? As opposed to a cosmic deity/
The Pastor reels on:
"In discussions with atheists, I don't hear any evidence for the validity of atheism."
Again, there does not have to be such when the deity claimants haven't delivered the basic for their entity. The con-position (intellectual) only needs validation when the claimant side has already fulfilled its obligations for an ontological claim. That is, they have given us an operational definition and also the n-s conditions for its existence, that we may discriminate from all other possible existents of the same generic mold ("Gods").
Until such time, you cannot say atheism is not providing "evidence for its validity". The reason being YOU all must present the positive basis for your deity's validity first. Further, the onus is on you to prove it (or at minimum provide the n-s conditions for it) not on us to disprove it.
Mike again:
"There are no "proofs" that God does not exist in atheist circles; at least, none that I have heard --"
Nor will you, because as I have repeated 1001 times already, it is logically impossible to prove a negative. This is something learned in Logic 101 but something obviously lacking in your education.
Let me repeat this again in the (faint) hope it will finally sink in: The positive claimant is the one who has the burden of substantiating his proof for his claim. It is not the burden of the con-position to "prove" an entity does not exist.
Obviously, because any madman can make any insane claim and then defy me to 'disprove it'. For example, he can claim giant invisible ten dimensional spiders are taking over the Earth. Then shout: "disprove it". Obviously I can't. But that does not mean there are really ten dimensional spiders taking over the world. Only that logic has its limits in terms of "proving negatives".
Mike again:
"especially since you can't prove a negative regarding God's existence. "
Well, the Pastor seems to finally get that proving a negative is impossible. So why then continue to insist we do that? Obviously because it's the only game he knows, and the only one he can play...given he's averse to providing support for his claim via n-s conditions, or definitions.
The Pastor spiels on:
Of course, that isn't to say that atheists haven't attempted to offer some proofs that God does not exist. But their attempted proofs are invariably insufficient."
WHAT "proofs"? Where? Provide them! Sources and citations, authors? NO atheist I know has attempted that.
What we have done is to invoke the basic laws of probability to show your claimed deity is either redundant or inconsistent (in terms of its claimed properties) with actually observed actions in the world. Perhaps the best and most succinct clarification of this was offered by Philosopher Alan Watts, in his 'The Wisdom of Insecurity':
Watts says:
"The modern scientist is not so naive as to deny God because he cannot be found in a telescope or under a scalpel, or in a test tube.
He has merely noted that the idea of God is logically unnecessary. It does not help him to explain anything, e.g. supernovas, or to make verifiable predictions"
In other words, the *idea* is redundant.
Maybe Pastor Mike can look that word up in a proper dictionary before he comments again! We certainly don't want to see him get more and more "redundant" in his replies!
I doubt "Preacher Man", has any idea of what he's talking about with all his cut and paste, using other's definitions of Atheist. I mean it only took 3 days to come up with rebuttal's to it.
I really wonder if Pastor Mike could come up with the same answers, "immediately", in a proper debate of Atheism, with Phil or any other Atheist? I really doubt it. Pastor Mike continually chatters on with all his bible verses on his webpage that it is so off course with what anyone is talking about, that it invalidates a discussion on any one point. He nor his croney Rene has yet to answer Phil's questions of proof of god, period. Again you can't prove a negative Pastor Mike, it doesn't exist, don't you get it? Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy, and god are all negatives, unproven in science or reality. I mean people may take you more seriously if you were praying to an alien from another planet or something.
This leads me to my next theory. What if in the next few years aliens from another star system landed and explained to EVERYONE, on this world, that the god your praying to was their invention? All the miracles in your bible were in fact, of alien creation. This is 100% more plauseable and believeable than what your throwing around now, Pastor Mike. Have you ever read Ezekiel in the bible, Pastor Mike? Or does your bible not have it in it. Try checking out: EZEKIEL 1:4- 1:24. Ezekiel describes an absolute close encounter with an alien, not god, and also goes into great detail stating they were not angels or god.
I think all you evangelicals and christian fundi's would immediately self destruct if the above finally came to be, or was proven in the near future, by science, not fictitious beliefs.
I mean eventually we have to explain to little kids as they get older, there ain't no Santi Clause, or Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy, they may cry but as they reach the age of "REASONING", they finally understand this. It's a shame the parents started this lie, just as humans of thousands of years ago started the "god" lie.
Don't you see Pastor Mike, you've been conditioned and trained to believe in all this hokey pokey, from childhood on. Aren't you of a logical brain to know when something just doesn't fit? I still recall George Carlin's saying about him being a Catholic, until he reached the age of reasoning, which was about the age of 3 years old. Unfortunately Pastor Mike you have not, as yet anyway, reached the age of reasoning. Even the nightly news the other night stated evangilism is on it's way out.
Just remember what I said above, when mass landings of aliens come upon us, and they melt your brain, but not before proving to you it was all "Big Daddy", fooling his little kid with a story you should have grown out of years ago.
You really nailed it harleyman! I believe Pastor Mike, Rene and the rest of their whacked out crew would crap in their panties if a bunch of aliens landed. It would prove all their religious bunk is in error.
The biggest favor those aliens could do for us is to remove ALL the bibles in the world. Burn 'em with a ray gun or something. Starting with the King James version first, of course.
What a bunch of morons. Copernicus has beaten these two so badly by the sheer power of his inexorable logic it will be a wonder if either of them shows up again.
Preacher Man wrote:
"At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient"
You guys are really out to lunch! Is that all you can do is display your boundless ignorance? You simply confirm all that Copernicus has said about you (including, yeeeesssss...that you are unable to think logically and you believe in fantasies and myths)
Look, Preach, you guys have NO "theistic proofs". Name one! Anselm's was long ago dispatched into oblivion and any moron who can read knows where to find it.
Plus, as Coperncus has aptly pointed out, you cannot have a proof before you have an ontology. WHERE is it? I haven't seen it from either you or your little mate, Rene. Neither of you seems to know what an ontology is and yet you blabber on about "theistic proofs"!? You are jokes.
Now, let me go real slowly here, because there are NO theistic proofs, there is no need for any atheistic disproofs of them.
Can you understand that, Preacher man? Or am I going too fast?
Again, the atheist isn't saying 'there is no God' so much as there exists no ontology or reason for it to be retained. The idea of it, as Copernicus pointed out in response to your remark, is thus redundant.
Thus, it is totally absurd to state that "the proofs (of God's nonexistence) thus presented are insufficient"
No, preach, what is insufficient is your whole foundational basis for accepting a divinity.
You really need to get your thinking clear before you comment here again.
Maybe you could use some electro-shock treatments. I understand it does wonders for cobwebbed brains.
My 'brothers / sisters'-
Rene and I , have , in good faith and trust , posted here in the hopes of our (Phil's and mine) respective blogs , complimenting each others , so as to continue having some type of informative dialogue with one another .
It seems , though , that we have encountered (besides OUTRIGHT BLASPHEMY ) of Our Lord and Savior , JESUS CHRIST , blatant profanity towrds Rene and myself .
Please don't misunderstand , I ,for one , do NOT have 'thin-skin' , and as I concede on my I-Net church ,I can be brusque and sarcastic - HOWEVER . . that does NOT equate to literally cussing someone out.
I was obviously incorrect when I believed that we could continue any type of civil discussion / debate here on Phil's blog (and btw,Phil , I am NOT directing this at YOU ) .
ANY of you are still invited to post on my blog ,where YES !! - I WILL continue to edit and / or disallow the type of emotional juvenile outbursts and blatant bllasphemy that I have witnessed on this blog.
My prayers will continue for each and every one of you -
Pastor Mike
Preacher Man wrote:
"It seems , though , that we have encountered (besides OUTRIGHT BLASPHEMY ) of Our Lord and Savior , JESUS CHRIST , blatant profanity towrds Rene and myself ."
What a jive turkey! What "blasphemy"? Give one example! Look, over here there is no artificial censorship of points of view and maybe THAT is what you can't handle.
Preacherman:
"Please don't misunderstand , I ,for one , do NOT have 'thin-skin and as I concede on my I-Net church ,I can be brusque and sarcastic - HOWEVER . . that does NOT equate to literally cussing someone out."
WHO was "cussed out" and where? Show it. More likely you two are unused to a real blog where comments are censored. Of course, since you all don't know how to conduct a logical argument then this is all you can come back to.
Preacherman:
"I was obviously incorrect when I believed that we could continue any type of civil discussion / "
Well, you are correct so long as you two chumps are incapable of a rational argument. Then the only thing left for us is to expose you as chumps and pests using sarcasm and puncturing your self-righteous crap.
Preacherman:
"ANY of you are still invited to post on my blog ,where YES !! - I WILL continue to edit and / or disallow the type of emotional juvenile outbursts and blatant bllasphemy that I have witnessed on this blog."
Oh please. Spare us. Who wants to waste time on some pretend blog when posts have to be processed first and censored because of some preconceived notion of "blasphemy"?
As I said, the truth is you two simply don't know how to debate or argue rationally so your only other option is to bring up these red herrings.
As for Copernicus, he arranged this blog so that it was free wheeling like most real blogs are, not pre-censored to meet the dictates of some mind-controller. Kudos to him.
When either of you can address Copernicus' standing demands for you to provide a definition of your god and give its necessary and sufficient conditions, then yes, come back.
Otherwise, go drool on your keyboard!
Well Pastor Mike, guess you'll be picking up your marbles and going back to your own one-sided blog now. Again you obviously can't read and comprehend even the title of this blog which again is: "The Futility of Debating Religious Believers", in essence being able to properly debate your position without the "god Mike" putting his fickel finger over what he doesn't like. Thus the reason Phil decided to explain why he felt it necessary to move the discussion over to his blog here. So people interested could actually see and read the reason you can't argue with programmed robots on their turf. The truth never gets out when the truth is censored.
You, nor Rene, not having a comprehension of the english language fail to understand that sometimes slang is used to best describe someone who fails to pay attention, when asked a question, and simply parrots the same blabber over and over. Since neither you nor Rene are here in person, to be knuckled over the head when your not listening, like a little kid, you have to be awaken somehow, thus the use of slang to hopefully get yours and Rene's attention.
You go on inviting us or others to go over to your blog, why? To be censored, sanatized, or ignored completly? You like to play the game as long as YOU come up the winner, ALL the time.
Just by reading your's and Rene's posts here, it's certainly obvious neither of you can come up with ONE ORIGINAL thought, or answer ONE simple question put to you. Maybe if you and Rene would get your head out of your asses and stop trying to be so pompous and self-righteous you'd be taken a little more seriously.
The problem is that you want only those you are able to control with your bullshit, and will listen attentively, while you bolster on with you twisted outlook on your made up religion, or so-called belief. I don't think even YOU believe half the shit you're throwing out to people. I do think you're in need of professional help though.
I just got done reading, on your website, why you only go by the KJV of the bible. You start out by talking of the 14 other versions of the bible used by other religions, then go on to say, and I quote: "I am NOT stating that Christians who DO USE other Bible versions are “wrong”, per se". Then you go on to say and I quote again: "And as I mentioned several months ago - if it were up to me - I’D BURN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE FOURTEEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS ,and send ‘em to HELL - WHERE THEY BELONG !!".
What kind of sick thinking is that? You sound like Hitler when he had all the books burned that he didn't like. Not to mention you're talking out of both side of your ass. Also just what is up with you fudi's and this total obsession with the KJV bible? It's just ANOTHER VERSION, of the same crap, not to mention it's full of as many errors in translation as the others are. Again on your website you go on about your KJV of the bible and making comparisons of one or two words being a bit off with other bibles, what an asshole. Can't you see not everyone comes up with the same translation when translating from a different language. If you were Spanish speaking and had a statement you made translated to English by one spanish/english speaking individual, another spanish/english speaking individual may come up with a completly different translation, but the same thought or idea would apply. You don't understand a thing about foreign languages and translation. Not each and every word of a foreign language can be translated into english, it's the idea or thought that is being translated. Maybe if you understood this better you'd see that your KJV bible is no better than any others out there, by being correctly translated.
I see it's hopeless to try to explain things that are so elementary to others, yet so hard for someone like you, Pastor Mike, to understand or comprehend. You don't like the expletives your being called but yet people call them like they see them, especially when the receiving party or parties are so dense.
harlyeman quoted Pastor Mike:
" I’D BURN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE FOURTEEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS ,and send ‘em to HELL - WHERE THEY BELONG !!".
What, is this guy psycho or something? Who the hell does he think hs is? A King of the country? A tyrant?
And he has the nerve to call US "blasphemers"?
I think this Preacherman-Pastor Mike character is in serious need of being institutionalized, and treated with electro-shocks (as Jani suggested) along with maybe lithium. I understand it's the usual deal for sociopaths and psychos.
Look, pastor upchuck, when you go on other blogs you abide their their rules. Dig?
Leaving out all your ignorant whining, the main reason you are exiting stage right is simple: you and little Rene got your butts handed to you in a sling by Copernicus.
He chopped you two up so badly using plain logic that it was like watching the Dallas Cowboys maul the High school local punk team. Not pretty.
So hey, as harley put it, take your marbles and leave you little babies. And don't come back here unless you learn how to reason, use basic logic and debate at an adult level.
As for blasphemy, the only type I know of is a sect of religious crazies who are prepared to send most other Christians to hell because they believe differently.
The sooner you, Rene and the rest of your little psycho gang are locked up in rubber rooms, the better for us all.
Copernicus was right when he wrote that debating you was futile. It's like debating a couple of bugs on the sidewalk.
Hasta la vista you christian hitlers!
Preacherman wrote:
""ANY of you are still invited to post on my blog ,where YES !! - I WILL continue to edit and / or disallow the type of emotional juvenile outbursts and blatant bllasphemy "
Right. But you will allow your own emotional outbursts and emotional juvenile nonsense and blatant blasphemy. Like saying you will send all 14 other christian versions of the bible to hell.
Hey pastor, do you seriously think that kind of thinking is mature? Do you think it is innocent, and not blasphemous? Do you think heaping scorn on other religions is the sign of an adult?
I have news for you. Keep your stupid site because it is no use to us.
Jani even emailed me that you never even published one of her replies and it was total vanilla. Copernicus already drew attention to one post or comment of his you lost, or forgot about. Very convenient, don't ya think?
So why go onto your stupid site when we can post immediately here with no censoring or control?
Keep it! You and Rene deserve it and each other.
Hasta la vista again, preach!
Pastor Mike wrote on his blog:
On Phil's blog , some poor ,misguided , NB who goes by the pseudonym of " Harley Man " ( probably due to the fact that he's a 'wanna-be' biker , who knows , huh ? . . . )
stated (and I'm paraphrasing here ) some nonsense about Ezekiel 1:4-24 referring to space ships , aliens beings (little green monsters ? ) , and other such nonsense - so , I will give him a basic lesson here in hermeneutics '101 (which , is probably a foreign concept to his ilk , anyway ) , but nevertheless , here goes " Harley Man " , my brother .
Ezekiel's Vision of God ( 1:4 - 24 ) :
Ezekiel's call came in the form of a theophany , a manifestation of God in the midst of a storm . He describes his vision in much greater detail than the theophanies of Moses ( Ex. 24:9 , 33 ) , Isaiah ( ch. 6 ) , Jeremiah ( 1:4-10 ) , Daniel ( 7:9 ), or Amos ( 7:15 ) .
1:4 ; " A WHIRLWIND CAME OUT OF THE NORTH . " God appears in a whirlwind and a " CLOUD " in Exodus 9:24 ; 19:16 ; Judges 5:4 ; 1 Kings 19:11 ; Psalms 29 ; Zechariah 9:14 . " NORTH " quite frequently indicates the direction from which the majority of Israel's enemies approached them . The Babylonian Empire extended from the land of the Chaldeans to the north of the Holy Land ( cf. Jer. 1:14 which says , " OUT OF THE NORTH AN EVIL SHALL BREAK FORTH . . . " ) .
5-9 ; " FOUR LIVING CREATURES. " These are identified in10:15 as cherubim . Cherubim are special angelic beings consistently associated with God's holiness ( 28:14 ; Isa, 6:31 ) .
10-11 ; " THEIR FACES . . . MAN . . . LION . . . OX . . . EAGLE ." All power , glory , and authority belong to God ! However , He uses rational intelligences to govern , including the angelic host . The face of " MAN " may well represent the realm of intelligence among God's creatures ; the face of the " LION " the majesty of His creation ; the face of the ' OX " , the patient service that creation returns to Him ; and the face of the " EAGLE " , swiftness to see and bring judgment where needed .
12 ; "STRAIGHT FORWARD " . Since cherubim are ministering spirits of The Lord , they do not deviate from their assigned task ( Heb. 1:14 ) . Their task , shortly , would be to carry out God's judgment upon a sinning nation .
13 - 14 ; "COALS OF FIRE " is used here as a symbol of judgment and holiness . By such means , Isaiah's lips were purged ( Isa. 6:7 ) . Note the coals of fire upon the altar to burn the sacrifices as substitutes for the sinners . The fire of judgment seen here in the vision was soon to be exercised upon the unrepentant remnant still in the land .
15-23 ; " WHEEL . . . wheels ." Obviously , the "wheels" are used symbolically . A wheel symbolizes movement . In His government God never is static , but is always moving . The idolatrous remnant was saying judgment would NOT come ( as you NB's are saying TODAY ! ) . However , God's reward or judgment will NEVER fail to come ! " WHEEL IN THE MIDDLE OF A WHEEL " . The symbolic wheels were so constructed as to enable movement in any direction , thus , speaking of His power to work anywhere . " FULL OF EYES " speaks of the One who is all-seeing and all-knowing . God IS omniscient AND omnipresent !
24 ; " NOISE OF THEIR WINGS " . The noise coming from the cherubim's wings is likened unto the noise of a great body of water , or the voice of The Almighty , or the noise of an army in movement . This is the same Hebrew word expressing the noise or sound that Adam and Eve heard in the garden in Genesis 3 , rendered " VOICE " in the KJV . The symbolism is that of unlimited strength and power . NOTHING can deter God from accomplishing His plans of judgment ! - and even angels have frequently been used in executing His judgment . ( 2 Kings 7:6 ; Dan. 10:6 ) .
So , " Harleyman" , should you be reading this - I pray that you are simply another misguided atheist , and NOT intentionally trying to decieve people via YOUR erroneous , unbiblical , and satanic interpretation of Scripture . After all , as I menioned prior EVEN Satan could quote Scripture - albeit PURPOSELY misinterpreting it !
For example ; Matthew 4:6 ; " And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."
You see , here , satan used Scripture to try to convince Jesus to sin . Sometimes friends , or associates will present attractive and convincing reasons why we should try something we KNOW is wrong . They may even find Bible verses that seem to support their viewpoint ( as MANY ATHEISTS DO - though they claim NOT to "believe" in it ! Hmmm . . HYPOCRITICAL ? ) .
So , my friends , we NEED to STUDY the Bible carefully , especially the broader context of specific verses , so that we understand God's principles for living and what He wants for our life . Only if we really understand what the WHOLE Bible says , can we recognize errors of interpretation when peolple take verses out of context and twist them to say what THEY WANT them to say !!
My prayers WILL remain with you and yours , though " Harley Man" in the hopes that BEFORE you stand before God , you will have left the 'darkness' and come into the 'light' via JESUS CHRIST !!
Pastor Mike.
Harleyman's response to the above chattering:
Just by reading the above you can see how totally screwed up this so-called pastor moron is in his rantings.
He's now take Ezekiel's whole passage of describing a UFO sighting and used other portions of the bible to explain what Ezekiel saw. Faux Pastor Mike is literally putting other's words into Ezekiel's mouth to try to explain what the Faux Pastor Mike has not been able to understand in the language used by the people of that time period. Talking about using "Bible Passages", to support one's claims, what a Hippocrate, you little turd. The Faux Pastor Mike sounds like a goddamn 1st grader with a mouth full of shit.
I would have posted to this chicken shit's website but for the simple fact it never would have been posted by the Faux Pastor. I also noticed his croney blowhard buddy Rene also posted more trash about Phil, he's as chicken shit as Faux Mike in his rantings. Guess Phil's definition still hasen't sunk in to Rene's thick skull.
The Faux pastor Mike starts out his rantings by attacking my "Harleyman" screen name which is a typical juvenile response and totally an expected response from a stupid, uneducated kid. I guess now the Faux pastor Mike is now an authority on bikers, huh? The only bike this Faux pastor has ever been on would have been his 3 wheel tricycle as a kid.
Anyway just reading this Faux pastor's chatterings will give ALL a typical glance into the real world of these Nincompoop Fundi's jello brains. At least it's good for a laugh. Hey Faux Pastor Mike, I hope your god isn't a biker god and decides to make you his bitch in the next world, as you surely are his bitch in this one.
Post a Comment