Saturday, August 18, 2012

Talking to a Brick Wall - Part 2

xkcd - Duty Calls
Oddly, after the other poster gave up debating with The Christian, The Christian turned his sights back on me.

Towards the end, we're more flaming one another - not something I'm particularly proud of, but that's the reality of it. These discussions have stretched over weeks, where part of my daily routine is to get up, get some coffee, and see what incredibly stupid thing The Christian has decided to barf into the textbox today.

Below the fold is the second half of the "debate".


My goal isn't necessarily to change his mind, so much as to serve as a case study. This is The Christian's A-game. This is the best he's got. Not just him, though- any of his allies who have attempted to chime in have performed even more poorly.

I wanted to bring this discussion over, partially for mere entertainment value, but also partially to serve as a case study. The fact is, when evangelical debates are laid out like a fish - they're empty and vacuous. These posts will help enshrine that fact for a long while to come.

Hopefully, someone will find this particular case study helpful, though probably not during the name-calling.


I am certain he's a troll (what can you do? Never talk to anyone you don't agree with?), though I'm also fairly certain he's actually an evangelical Christian. I think towards the end, he's switched over from a embarrassing flailing of argumentation to just trying to push my buttons.

If you can't convert them, piss them off!

Christian:

//What you've demonstrated is that someone had the capacity to predict the future.// 
I've demonstrated nothing at all, SCRIPTURE has DEMONSTRATED that SOMEONE had the capacity to predict the future. 
That SOMEONE (which had the capacity to predict the future) is also REVEALED in the same portion of scripture. 
He DEMONSTRATED His capacity to predict the future: 
I, the LORD GOD, will turn you into a ghost-town. The OCEAN DEPTHS will rise over you and carry you down to the world of the dead, where you will join people of ancient times and towns ruined long ago. You will stay there and never again be a city filled with people.You will die a horrible death! People will come looking for your city, but it will NEVER BE FOUND.I, the LORD, HAVE SPOKEN. Ezekiel 26:19-21 (CEV) 
//That says nothing about a god - nothing about universe-creating pixies.// 
Scripture says nothing about what?
Me:
"//What you've demonstrated is that someone had the capacity to predict the future.//
I've demonstrated nothing at all, SCRIPTURE has DEMONSTRATED that SOMEONE had the capacity to predict the future." 
I'll go ahead and hypothetically say that's true (though I'm not sure why it's important between you demonstrating or a book). 
"That SOMEONE (which had the capacity to predict the future) is also REVEALED in the same portion of scripture." 
"True By Association" (Association fallacy) #13 
If one verse in the Bible is shown to be true, that doesn't translate into any other part being true. I know I've given this example before describing this fallacy of thought, but here it is again. 
If we have a book "1000 facts about Electricity", and we confirm that the first 999 are correct, that doesn't mean that the 1000th asertion, "Electricity comes from Zeus", is true. 
"He DEMONSTRATED His capacity to predict the future: 
I, the LORD GOD, will turn you into a ghost-town. The OCEAN DEPTHS will rise over you and carry you down to the world of the dead, where you will join people of ancient times and towns ruined long ago. You will stay there and never again be a city filled with people.You will die a horrible death! People will come looking for your city, but it will NEVER BE FOUND.I, the LORD, HAVE SPOKEN. Ezekiel 26:19-21 (CEV)" 
What was this a prediction of? It sounds like it could be just about any generic flood, or tsunami.  
I'm sorry, but if you think it takes special powers to predict tsunamis... I'm afraid that's rather dull. I, on the otherhand, have the spectacular ability to predict that Maine will suffer from a drought at some point in the future! 
"//That says nothing about a god - nothing about universe-creating pixies.//
Scripture says nothing about what?" 
I'm afraid you misunderstood what I was saying. The "what" is demonstrating that someone can predict the future. Someone's ability to predict the future has no relation to the existence of a god. 
That's why I'm perplexed about this line of argumentation. It does nothing to demonstrate a god, unless you're going to go ahead and make the same association fallacy for the 14th time (that I've started counting). 
The association fallacy here, by the way, is the conslusion that because two assertions are assocatied by a common book (the Bible), that therefore, if one is true, therefore the other must be true. It's yet another logical fallacy.
Christian:
//"True By Association" (Association fallacy) #13// 
What is it with you and all this "True By Association" (Association fallacy) #13 or so on. Can't you tell if something is true or not without having to associate stuff?  
//If one verse in the Bible is shown to be true, that doesn't translate into any other part being true.// 
It does not TRANSLATE into any any other part of the Bible being true but if you were to find one verse in the Bible which is not TRUE then NONE of it is TRUE.  
Can you find ONE verse in the Bible which is not TRUE?
Me:
"//"True By Association" (Association fallacy) #13// 
What is it with you and all this "True By Association" (Association fallacy) #13 or so on. Can't you tell if something is true or not without having to associate stuff?" 
That's a great question. What's odd about the question is that you are the one doing that. I'm counting how many times you've repeatedly made this Association Fallacy.  
We ask you to provide evidence for a god, for example, and you come back with some evidence that shows that a city exists. 
We ask you to provide evidence for a god, for example, and you come back with some evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. 
We ask you to provide evidence for a god, for example, and you come back with claims that some guy in the Bible correctly made some predictions. 
We're asking for evidnece for a God, and you're (sort of) demonstrating everything BUT God. 
You are the one here who is trying to make God true by association with true mudnane claims, as though being adjacent claims makes the God claim absorb the truthiness of the mundane claims. 
"//If one verse in the Bible is shown to be true, that doesn't translate into any other part being true.// 
It does not TRANSLATE into any any other part of the Bible being true" 
Woo! You get it! Only after I've explained it over and over and over! 
"but if you were to find one verse in the Bible which is not TRUE then NONE of it is TRUE." 
Uh what? It doesn't work that way either. That'd be a "false by association" error.  
I would distinguish between book being mostly true or false, and whether it's built credibility, but I'm not talking about credibility, because that's too prone to human subjective error.
I'm talking about whether truth claims have been demonstrated. 
"Can you find ONE verse is the Bible which is not TRUE?" 
Logical fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof 
The default position for any claim is non-acceptance until it's been sufficiently justified by evidence. As I said before, this isn't just applied to religious claims, but is actually key to our ability as human beings to function in life. 
If you are claiming that the Bible is true, or that specific claims are true, it's up to you to demonstrate them. No one has any obligation to believe you until you've done this.  
You can skip the mundane claims, like the existence of cities, and deal directly with the existence of God. That'd be the most efficient.
Christian:
//We ask you to provide evidence for a god, for example, and you come back with some evidence that shows that a city exists. We ask you to provide evidence for a god, for example, and you come back with some evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. We ask you to provide evidence for a god, for example, and you come back with claims that some guy in the Bible correctly made some predictions.// 
I don't recall coming back with CLAIMS that some guy in the Bible correctly made some predictions because you said: 
//What you've DEMONSTRATED is that someone had the capacity to predict the future.// 
(emphasis made).  
I (using Scripture) also DEMONSTRATED that "that someone" or that "guy in the Bible" you acknowledged to "CORRECTLY" make some predictions or had the "CAPACITY" to predict the future is GOD himself.
Christian:
If GOD did not make these predictions CORRECTLY DEMONSTRATED in Scripture then who did? We both know somebody made the prediction, the prediction is made in Scripture and Scripture says it was GOD who said this will happen and it DID. 
Oh...you don't believe in God. 
So? This does not change the FACTS that these things happened as GOD said they would according to Scripture.
Christian:
History tells me JFK was shot. 
Oh...I don't believe JFK was shot. 
So? This does not change the FACTS.
Christian:
//If you are claiming that the Bible is true, or that specific claims are true, it's up to you to demonstrate them. No one has any obligation to believe you until you've done this.// 
The Bible itself claims to be true in every single way, it has demonstrated it's claims to be true so far within our ability to demonstrate them. No one has any obligation to believe anything. You have free will, science, history and "common sense"... you can choose to BELIEVE whatever you want but you cannot choose the consequences of your BELIEF.
Christian:
//What was this a prediction of? It sounds like it could be just about any generic flood, or tsunami.  
I'm sorry, but if you think it takes special powers to predict tsunamis... I'm afraid that's rather dull. I, on the otherhand, have the spectacular ability to predict that Maine will suffer from a drought at some point in the future!// 
The prophecy is about TYRE, I thought you knew the whole context found in Ezekiel Chapter 26: 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+26&version=GW 
You be the Judge: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8_jV6R0_5A&feature=player_detailpage
Me:
"I don't recall coming back with CLAIMS that some guy in the Bible correctly made some predictions because you said:" 
Okay...? 
"//What you've DEMONSTRATED is that someone had the capacity to predict the future.// (emphasis made).
I (using Scripture) also DEMONSTRATED that "that someone" or that "guy in the Bible" you acknowledged to "CORRECTLY" make some predictions or had the "CAPACITY" to predict the future is GOD himself." 
I didn't acknowledge that he made correct predictions. What I've been saying is "even if he did" - etc. Like that "prediction" you gave earlier - they're typically boring, incredibly vague prections that are merely a question of time before they'll come true just from statistical probability. 
Secondly, if you are going to assert that God was involved, even IF the "predictions" were compelling, you'd actually have to demonstrate the connection between God and the capacity to predict the future. 
What you have there is one big WHOPPING logical fallacy - Begging the Question.  
"If GOD did not make these predictions CORRECTLY DEMONSTRATED in Scripture then who did?" 
And now we've thrown in yet another logical fallacy - Argument from Ignorance. If we have no data indicating how this person did what he did, then our answer is "We don't know", not "let's make up some shit and call it true". 
If we show that someone has the capacity to predict the future, the first question is "how?", not leaping to some conclusion that intergalactic space elephants did it, because "how else would we explain it?" 
"We both know somebody made the prediction," 
Yes - the guy who made it (not that I'm conceding that they aren't liberally translated/vague/etc). We have no evidence on how that guy got the information, even if he managed to make compelling predictions. 
"the prediction is made in Scripture and Scripture says it was GOD who said this will happen and it DID." 
Do you have any evidence that backs up this assertion? Do you know what I call the Bible? "The Book of a Million-and-One Balded-Faced Evidenceless Undemonstrated Unproven Assertions". This particular assertion is part of that particular set. 
"Oh...you don't believe in God."" 
Correct! You do! 
"So? This does not change the FACTS that these things happened as GOD said they would according to Scripture." 
They aren't facts merely because you assert it. You need actual scientific evidence to back up the claims. So far, all we have is some verification that some referenced cities existed, some people existed, and there's some guy in referenced in the Bible that makes vague boring predictions that would come true whether he had special powers or not. 
"History tells me JFK was shot." 
Actually, evidence tells us this. 
"Oh...I don't believe JFK was shot." 
You're free to deny the evidence - but I reiterate that the difference between your Bible and the JFK incident, is that we actually have evidence, and plenty of it, that the shooting occurred - a lot of it being contemporary and from multiple independent sources. 
In addition, the existence of a god, and the fact some president got shot are not even remotely on the same standing, in terms of being extraordinary. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that Presidents exist, and it's pretty easy to demonstrate that people get shot. 
To compare the JFK shooting to claims of physics-violating impossible miricles and the existence of a universe creating entity... 
It'd be like comparing the claim that I took a shit to the claim that I took off in my spaceshoot to another galaxy where I became ruler for 10 million years. If you think those two claims require the same burden of proof, you're nuts. 
"So? This does not change the FACTS." 
Well, no, of course. The facts are unchanged regardless of what we think about them. The question is, what has been shown to be fact? The JFK shooting is, easily, and God's existence isn't - not even remotely. 
"The Bible itself claims to be true in every single way, it has demonstrated it's claims to be true so far within our ability to demonstrate them." 
Which ones? The boring claims, like that cities exist? Or the ones about magic/miracles/gods? Becuase those currently have zero supporting evidence so far. 
It sounds like you're engaging in "True By Association" (Association Fallacy) #15 
"No one has any obligation to believe anything. You have free will, science, history and "common sense"... you can choose to BELIEVE whatever you want but you cannot choose the consequences of your BELIEF." 
I don't agree that we have "free will" - but that depends on the definition. 
I don't agree that I have the capacity to choose what I believe. I'm either convinced of something, or I'm not. That part is mostly on autopilot.  
I think "common sense" is a highly inaccurate way to approaching knowledge. 
You aren't about to whip out the insanely bad argument - Pascal's Wager, are you? I'm afraid I don't find that disconbobulation of argumentation particularly convincing, either. 
"I'm sorry, but if you think it takes special powers to predict tsunamis... I'm afraid that's rather dull. I, on the otherhand, have the spectacular ability to predict that Maine will suffer from a drought at some point in the future!// 
The prophecy is about TYRE, I thought you knew the whole context found in Ezekiel Chapter 26:" 
Why would you think that? My understanding of the Bible is very cursory. Every time I try to read it, my eyes glaze over. 
"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+26&version=GW 
You be the Judge: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8_jV6R0_5A&feature=player_detailpage" 
So basically, a mixture of self-fulfilling prophesy (people could read the Bible as a guide-book), and basic predictions about political outcomes, all without a deadline so it remains vague enough for any event to be cherry picked to fulfill it. Throw in some liberal interpretation, and ignore anything that didn't come true, and you've got yourself a great big case of confirmation bias. 
Not very compelling. I don't know why you think it takes magic or sky pixies for this to come true. 
Me: 
By the way, Nicky - every time you employ a logical fallacy, that invalidates that particular argument. You should really stop doing that. 
I'm hoping that you'll eventually learn the fallacies, I guess. 
I have this "1st Law of Apologetics" that I made up - no argument for the existence of God exists that does not employ at least one logical fallacy. 
So far, my law is being upheld 100%
Christian:
Good for you [me] but that still does not change the FACTS.
Me:
"Good for you [me] but that still does not change the FACTS." 
As I stated before - I know. But that's begging the question as to what the FACTS are. You're asserting some things as fact, and I don't know why, since they are unsupported by evidence.
What's the best approach to consistently accurately determining what the FACTS are? 
Science. 
Is the God assertion backed up by science? Nope. 
Therefore, I don't believe it. 
There's still a bunch of dangling assertions you've left undemonstrated. 
I'm still waiting for evidence that everything is designed.
I'm still waiting for evidence that God exists.
I'm still waiting for evidence that there's an actual connection between some guy who can supposedly predict the future, and the existence of a god - and not just an embarrassingly blatant utilization of the Argument from Ignorance - literally the dumbest logical fallacy in existence. 
And most importantly, I want actual evidence, not what you "think" is evidence - that which actually qualifies based on standards. It should also be free of logical fallacies - especially universally recognized standard logical fallacies.  
You have not employed any kind of critical thinking, at least that I've observed. Critical thinking is "thinking about thinking" - evaluating whether one's thought processes are actually valid and accurate. Critical thinking involves question one's own assumption and a priori premises. 
You've shown no such quality. The assumptions a critical thinker would question/challenge you instead strongly assert as FACT. You've shown absolutely zero interest in discussing epistemology or the standards of evidence. You've shown zero aptitude towards correcting or even caring about your logical fallacies.  
I've observed a feeble effort to adapt to what I'm saying about logic by erroneously attempting to shift the burden of proof, for example, but the motivation appears to be to win an argument, as opposed to being intellectually honest and genuinely attempting to figure out what the truth is. 
I was surprised when you responded to my repeatedly counting how many times you've made the same Association Fallacy. Up until that point, you've shown zero interest in ensuring that your epistemological framework is accurate. 
You've got your belief, and you're going to stick to it no matter what. It doesn't matter how much you have to throw overboard to keep afloat - reason, evidence, and even the basics of logic itself - all will be cast aside as you so desperately cling to your delusional fantasy. 
You've got your comfortable security blanket, and, if you're anything like other evangelical Christians, you're disturbed that people like me exist at all. Our mere existence is a thorn in your side. 
No one invited you here to try to convert us. You've done this by your own accord. I'm perfectly happy to simply live my life and run it how I choose. Until you decide to adopt our epistemological framework (science/evidence/reason/etc), you are not going to succeed in convincing us of anything. 
You'll be wasting the one and only life we know you have. 
Sorry - I was in the mood for a soliloquy.
Me:
Monologue - not soliloquy
Christian:
//Is the God assertion backed up by science? Nope.
Therefore, I don't BELIEVE it.// (emphasis made) 
I said you can BELIEVE whatever you want. 
//As I said before, no I can't. I can't believe unbelievable things. I'm either convinced of something, or not. For me, convincing requires evidence, logic and reason.// 
So suit yourself and I hope you are not convinced that it is OK for you to walk around naked because there is no evidence for morality either.
Me:
//Is the God assertion backed up by science? Nope.
Therefore, I don't BELIEVE it.// (emphasis made) 
I said you can BELIEVE whatever you want." 
And... again... I said that I can't just believe something - I have to convinced of something. Am I caught in a temporal loop? 
"//As I said before, no I can't. I can't believe unbelievable things. I'm either convinced of something, or not. For me, convincing requires evidence, logic and reason.//
So suit yourself and I hope you are not convinced that it is OK for you to walk around naked because there is no evidence for morality either." 
I'd say that's the single dumbest thing I've heard, but there's a lot of contenders for that acheivement. 
Of course there's evidence for morality. We can observe people treating each other well all the time. Society would have collapsed if it didn't exist. 
That's what morality is - learned behavior about how to get along with one another. Humanity has slowly been figuring this out, some cultures faster than others, through trial and error.  
Don't make the mistake in thinking that atheists have to SEE something before accepting that's it's true. It can be indirectly demonstrated, but the key there is that it's demonstrated. We can study and examine magnetism, for instance, without it being picked up by any of ours senses. We can, however, see its effects on iron filings, for instance.  
Likewise, we can not only observe people's behaviors with one another, but also directly question them about their decision processes. 
Furthermore, this is a category error. The existence of a god is an extraordinary claim. People managing to get along with one another isn't. Thus, the two claims don't have the same burden of proof requirements. 
God's activities (such as miracles) violate the laws of physics. Deciding to donate some bottles to a bottle drive, doesn't. That makes the God claim require a LOT of good evidence to support. 
Furthermore still, standard investigative practices study available evidnece and find the most reasonable explanations based on that data. The observation and biological necesity of morality in our species is a direct conclusion based on studying available evidence. 
No evidence, when studied, leads to the existence of a god. It's always people who start with an a priori belief in a god, who then attempt to scour reality for anything that hints at supporting the belief. It's a completely backwards approach to investigation, and rarely ever succeeds in discovering accurate new information. 
When we do evaluate the available evidence, it becomes blatantly obvious that the god concept is utterly superfluous.  
God isn't needed for anything.
Christian:
//Of course there's evidence for morality. We can observe people treating each other well all the time. Society would have collapsed if it didn't exist// 
Why does it exist, can you give an account to this?
Me:
"//Of course there's evidence for morality. We can observe people treating each other well all the time. Society would have collapsed if it didn't exist// 
Why does it exist, can you give an account to this?" 
It exists for the same reason that traffic laws exist - because we're all trying to use the same roads, and we've settled on a set of rules and behavioral expectations that help minimize accidents and maximize efficiency.. all while sharing the same road with hundreds of other people. 
It's not rocket science. We're a social species, where one of our evolutionary advantages was our tendency to work together to solve problems. Tens of thousands of years ago, if the only food source available were large wooly mammoths, individual people couldn't take one down. A cooperation of people can - and that establishes a beneficial selection. 
After that, it's merely a question of, through trial and error, figuring out what rules/behaviors best meet those goals. Human morality has been slowly improving for tens of thousands of years. It wasn't until recently that (most of) humanity has decided that slavery is wrong. Slavery is the easiest moral question, and the Bible completely screws that up. So forgive me if I seem horrified that anyone would consider this a source of morality. 
It's as rediculous to assert that we need God to figure out not to steal each other's assets (which constitutes a harm - decreasing the victim's ability to survive), as it would be to assert that we need God to help figure out traffic law. 
Simple reason and observation can easily account for the construction morality.  
The irony of those who suggest that we get our morality from a god is that this religious morality is the single most primitive form of morality that can exist - something is right or wrong because some bearded dude in the sky said so. According to Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, this form of morality is infantile. To hold this view of morality means that one has the moral development of a 5 year old child.  
Religion/theim retards everything it touches - morality, social development, justice, technologicla and intellectual progress. Humanity is much better off without its primitive superstitions. 
Is something moral because God made it that way, or is it good and God is simply relaying that information?
Christian:
//It exists for the same reason that traffic laws exist - because we're all trying to use the same roads, and we've settled on a set of rules and behavioral expectations that help minimize accidents and maximize efficiency.. all while sharing the same road with hundreds of other people.// 
I don't believe your logical fallacies, they are vague and unscientific still providing no evidence for why morality exists. You've made the same Association Fallacy to justify your religion.
Me:
//It exists for the same reason that traffic laws exist - because we're all trying to use the same roads, and we've settled on a set of rules and behavioral expectations that help minimize accidents and maximize efficiency.. all while sharing the same road with hundreds of other people.// 
"I don't believe your logical fallacies, they are vague and unscientific still providing no evidence for why morality exists. You've made the same Association Fallacy to justify your religion." 
What logical fallacies did I make precisely (outside of the one you named)? 
How is what I said an Association Fallacy? You don't appear to have any clue what you're talking about.  
Again, if you think that requiring evidnece for a god/supernatural claims before I believe it is "religion" - you're deranged. Or you need to pop open a dictionary from time to time. 
I don't suppose you could actually address any of my rebuttals? Any rebuttals I've given that have clearly and decisively obliterated your claims are oddly simply ignored.
Me:
It's kind of odd that you don't know what an association fallacy is, considering I've explained it to you a dozen times.
Me:
In regards to not providing any scientific evidence for morality - I expected that response, even as absurd as it is, especially coming from someone who doesn't have the faintest clue how science works. 
It's simply observation of behavioral patters that can be tested, repeated, is falsifiable, is exclusive, has objective results, is presentable and logical. Unlike religious claims, every bit of it is backed up in actual real demonstrably true natural mechanisms. It's about as demonstrated, as a concept, as something can get. 
If I wanted to supply truly pathetic "evidence" for the existence of morality, I'd do what you did 15 times, and claim that it exists because it's mentioned in the same book as something else entirely different that happened to be true.
Me:
But tying it back to the original burden of proof... even if we had no clue how we have morality, that would lend zero evidence towards the existence of a god. Attempting to do so would be an Argument from Ignorance - we don't know where morality comes from, therefore, it comes from God, therefore, God exists. 
You decided to come here and proselytize to us, trying to convince us that a god exists. We're still waiting for evidence. 
And no, logical fallacies are not evidence. We need actual evidence, that meets the standards of evidence, used to support and argument that has no logical fallacies, because the invocation of a logical fallacy instantly invalidates the argument. 
At this point you have no excuse at all for not knowing:
1) Our epistemological framework that you must use
2) The standards of evidence
3) Standard logical fallacies
4) Our position 
Unless you have absolutely Zero interest in convincing us of anything, #1 through #4 must be met. Otherwise, you're wasting your time, and our time. You have no excuse for not understanding this point either. 
If you can't do that, you are merely a troll who does not care about truth or reality or anything in between.
Christian:
So where is the evidence for why morality exists? Are you a troll?
Someone else: - Threw this one in because he agrees with me - which gets my seal of approval.
[Christian] - You're either on drugs or just an idiot. So which is it? Your comment(s) are insane at times...most of the time.
Me:
"So where is the evidence for why morality exists? Are you a troll?" 
Yep. You're a troll. I've already explained this in depth. You failed to respond to any point - and at this point, you're just slinging phrases at me, all the while ignoring any point in which your argument has been obliterated. 
And you know what? That's to be expected. That's the recourse of someone who has nothing. That's the recourse of someone who has a belief that is indefensible. You've demonstrated that over and over - that you have no capacity to support your assertions with any kind of logic, reason or evidence. 
Your entire belief system is a joke.
Me: (Responding to something he said to someone else)
"I must be either on drugs or just an idiot according to Karl because I don't believe we came from helium, hydrogen or rocks...by the way, Karl believes "we are all made of stars"...yep, just like Moby." 
No, there's another reason why you're an idiot.  
Abiogenesis is still largely unknown to us. Do you know what rational, intelligent people do, when asked how life started? We say "I don't know". 
Idiots say, "We don't know, therefore, I believe it's God" 
Idiots say believe things before they're been sufficiently demonstrated. 
It's not just a coincidence that there's an indirect relationship between education and religiosity. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to be religious.

Me:
Alright, I wash my hands of you - trolls will be trolls. 
Again, I motion that the dishonest liar troll be banished.


I don't know whether I'll bother talking to him any more. It's not like I set out to just go flame Christians. When I first started talking to him months ago, I was calm and trying to have an honest and open discussion.

He's clearly not intersted in that.

I should have pushed this question more:
Is something moral because God made it that way, or is it good and God is simply relaying that information?
It's basically Euthyphro's Dilemma - a line of argumentation that demonstrates that God as a source of information is a defective explanation. Of course, that's not a scenario he'd like to consider.

Stealing this quote from "some wise man" -
As a wise man once said, debating creationists about science is like playing chess with pigeons: they ignore the rules, knock the pieces over, shit all over the board then fly home to coo over their victory.
Yep, pretty much.

No comments:

Post a Comment