Saturday, June 19, 2010

The wall.

Seems to me that they have a wall of defense, ranging from the ludricous, "We speak in tongues, science is the Devil's tool!", to, "Christianity is philosophically correct, how can we NOT believe?"

Now while most do not care for the first argument(rolling eyes), most do not try to understand the second one!

Seems if one is smart enough to defend the philosophical arguments made over the millenia, one is also smart enough to use every trick in 'the book' to defend them.

Mostly, I'm thinking, it's diversion. Move the argument away from itself, so to speak.

Which philosophical religionist among is isn't willing to settle for a draw? You can't PROVE me wrong and I can't PROVE you wrong, therefore my position is as valid as yours! On the other hand, we have a couple of thousand years of 'the best minds' on our side, the ontological argument, the teleological argument etc. etc.

Even supposing that each one isn't a 'proof', let's say that they're 99% convincing(to me), then 3 X 99% is 297% convincing, isn't it? (Well, no.)

This is the wall. If one argument doesn't seem to be 'standing up', don't worry, it's not a brick wall, it's more like a force-field! If in doubt, simply accuse your accuser of being unintelligible, if not least because your sources are genius!( and who 'doesn't know' that geniuses are always right!?)

But we don't see these geniuses arguing against their own reason and logic, no.

Why ISN'T the World the Centre of the Universe like religious logic dictates??(It MUST have to have been considered TRUTH for so long, right?)

Guess the reason they took so long to come to a conclusion was not just to put the people they burned well into the past, but also to put that 'irrefutable' logic which they used to burn people, 'well into the past'' too! If we put the irrefutable logic that the World is the Centre of the Universe, 'in context', back when we were all 'morons', then that about covers it.

BUT, but at the same time we can still use that EXACT SAME logic to govern our beliefs now! JUST NOT the 'Earth centrist thing, that is bullshit!"

But while all this is going on, some theists also take the far right religionist positions, running interference for the so-called philosophical, sophisticated arguments, which by and large are the same old, "You can't PROVE we're wrong!", shit, that they've always been spouting, 'genius' or 'no genius'.

14 comments:

mac said...

Oh, but they can prove YOU wrong!

It's there in their book. I don't know which one, but I'm sure a good theist can quote chapter and verse proving it.
You know, the verse that says "pboy is full o' shit"...I think it's Leviticus, or maybe Ezekial.

Harry C Pharisee said...

You hit the nail on the head a few times over pb. The most relevant one being Eric inspired I guess.

It's almost like disingenuous apologists' arguments embody 'red-herring,' and 'straw man' ideas. While their specific arguments don't do that. Their line of argumentation is designed to draw the opponent away from the original, or inflate the smallest inaccuracies -which have nothing to do with the argument itself- so they can "win."

It's ridiculous.

-----

mac,

It's John 3:17. Put into context with John 3:16 it goes like this:

"For God so loved the earth that he gave his only begotten son so that all who live might not perish but have everlasting life. This includes pboy, who is full of shit, so don't believe a word he says. I should have never created Scotland."

I think that's a little harsh. But who am I to argue with a Hellenistic Jew from the 1st century who probably never met Jeebus?

Be healed!

Harry C Pharisee said...

My bad,

It should be, "...so that all who *believeth in him* might... This includes pboy, who is full of shit..."

Harry C Pharisee said...

It was just a transcription error.

It doesn't mean it's not inspired you heathens!!!

GearHedEd said...

Perfect example of Eric's style of argumentation:

thread on Debunkung Christianity

He even argued to a draw with me, if you read down to the bottom. But the discussion has moved on, so it's probably not worth the effort to comment in that particular thread.

pboyfloyd said...

I guess, in a way it is wonderful how some modern philosophers and philosophizers can convince themselves of these things through reason.

It's easy for me to see how the ancients/primitives simply considered 'that which changes over time', I'm thinking 'weather' here, as awesome.

Much like we can train pigeons(sp?) to do a little dance to obtain a seed, we could be easily fooled into thinking that we can alter weather to our purposes, by some ritual or other or by keeping certain rules.

And it's not a giant leap for us to see that, since in the pigeon's(sp?) case, there IS a 'man behind the curtain', that there's also, it would have seemed, a 'man behind the curtain' in the case of weather.

But Eric and his geniuses can pat themselves on the back all they want, it still boils down to, 'when one starts asking who-dun-it, one concludes that God-dun-it.'

Pliny-the-in-Between said...

One of the problems I have with philosophy in general is that it is one instance where putting lipstick on a pig may work. If you blur the lines of the pig enough, heck it may start to look like a super model if you squint just right.

Science on the other hand always comes down to that sticking point of being able to falsify it or not. Strange that so much of the real progress we have made always involves something that we ultimately can falsify.

Harry C Pharisee said...

Ah Ed,

You've got the best damn one-liners. Simply put...

"Prophecy fulfilled."

It is like he couldn't stop to consider what we're saying if he tried.

That's the part that genuinely confused me when I would get into it with him. Is he deflecting by reflex or genuinely being duplicitous?

Then I decided I just didn't care. Proper response I think.

GearHedEd said...

Thanks, Harry.

Maybe you could find a place for me in your tent passing the collection plate?

"...I swear, NOBODY put anything in it..."

Harvey said...

I submit that all of this diversionary, "straw-man", "you can't PROVE that I am wrong" type of argument has evolved over the centuries to deal with ever evolving and better understanding of reality. If you cannot forbid anyone to question your belief (i.e. by burning them alive), then you must find other ways to avoid listening to or recognizing the obvious anachronisms and outright dichotomies between your beliefs and reality. Hence the term "apologists". People like Eric are only better educated and armed to obfuscate on behalf of their religious beliefs; they are "apologists for Christ". If they have any self awareness at all, they see themselves as soldiers in an ongoing battle for the minds of the masses. They do so because it is the only way they can get affirmation for their hopes for eternity in this life. Very few of them, in my opinion, have the least interest in anyone's eternal soul, other than their own, of course.

Harry C Pharisee said...

...and all the atheists say, "Amen!"

Yes, it's almost like 'higher' education for apologists is actually antithetical to education itself. The word you used Harvey is perfect, 'obfuscate.'

Instead of learning and practicing clarification for the sake of understanding it's used for learning more nooks and crannies in which to anchor obfuscation.

Harry C Pharisee said...

"The wall."

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

What is "All in all it's just another brick in...?"

nat said...

You can't PROVE we're wrong!", shit, that they've always been spouting, 'genius' or 'no genius'

nat said...

Din kommentar er blevet gemt.
Det kan tage et øjeblik, før din kommentar vises på hjemmesiden på det oprindelige indlæg


well no GOD in your blog or good
for din, ford in, but you have the anti-christ Ford is in this blog
is name