I guess not everything in the Qu’ran is a lie, the bit about the bible being true. Conundrum solved.
Except that … truth is a as relative as the paper it is written on. At best it is a democratic agreement. At worst it is just some dude dictating it whilst brandishing a sword.
I did look up where apologist comes from: ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, “speak in return, defend oneself”. At least I learned something here. My working week is done!
Statements like this confirm what the neurological research shows: “People with greater paranormal beliefs showed lower levels of executive function. These findings support studies suggesting that superstitious thinking involves some degree of dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex.” M. Spinella and O. Wain (2006)
Susan, this is just my opinion but I think it does. The reason I say this is because I used to be a believer, and I know, based on personal experience, that it’s reversible. We do have fMRI evidence of neural circuitry associated with critical assessment being deactivated by neurohormones.
I met a Scottish couple in Tarifa who were homeschooling. Their kids were fine and they seemed to be giving them a well rounded education. At the time they were studying geography, history, Spanish, had just been to Morocco, and were observing raptors. I thought that was pretty impressive. I sure as hell knew none of that at a young age.
Ah, you’re referring to Homeschooling as practiced by the “rest” of the world. I’m talking about the Homeschooling practiced (predominantly) in the southern states of the U.S. One might call it, Special Ed
John, are you suggesting that critical thinking is taught in the average US public school? (I don’t have evidence either way.)
As far as the post goes, ROFL.
There’s no doubt that they are working towards a theocracy. By now I’m sure you’ve heard that Texas textbooks now teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses. Last November, the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 and approved the textbooks.
Well, let’s just see these kids trying to get employed in the real world. One thing’s for sure, the owners of Liberty University must be salivating with the prospect of so many potential paying “students”
Yes but it didn’t take. You can go to school, get good grades, and yet never learn to reason, to think clearly. I actually didn’t learn to fully reason until college when I really examined all the writings of those (like Aristotle) who codified logic and reason for all. I did have enough reasoning ability from the time I was a little one not to ever sound remotely like this guy.
Let me fix that for you:
“The Koran says the Bible is true, the Koran and the Bible cannot both be true, therefore either the Bible or the Koran is false. If the Bible is true, then the Koran would also have been true because it is correctly states that the Bible is true, and that is impossible. Therefore, the Bible is false, and since the Koran says it’s true, the Koran is false as well. Ergo, both are false.”
Oh wow, thank you, it’s such an honor! (I was going to ask you for the diploma, but then I realized that there probably shouldn’t be any tangible evidence for a theology degree.)
The Cult of the Giant Red Shoe could get accreditation in the U.S. Arch has a fantastic photo of the “campus” of an “accredited” bible university in the States… It’s a shed on a dirty hill. Ask him for it, its hillarious.
We already have a campus name. I think we should involve Arch, get accreditation and announce the graduation date. I am going to start working on the speech
They get themselves into traps by asserting that everything is completely true or completely false. You can just sit back and predict the day people stop believing simply because of the inflexibility.
Anyone ever notice the similarity to the Star Trek episode “A Piece of the Action” which first aired in 1968? There was a planet on which the entire society was based on a book which was accidentally left behind (a la Cargo Cults). No one ever says it, but most Christians and Muslims don’t worship a deity….THEY WORSHIP A BOOK.
Don’t ya just love Bill Shatner’s Chicago mob accent in that episode? “Deez ‘er guys and dem der gals.” I LOVE Star Trek and Shatner. He’s my Jesus, Man! He’s my Jesus!!
What an epic fail! And Neuronotes once again nails the reasons why. She is also quite right to bring up the reason why critical thinking is such a danger to religious parents trying to indoctrinate their kids. In spite of so many contrary claims about instructing people on how to be moral, what religion really teaches us is how not to be an autonomous moral agent but a immoral soldier of obedience. And to do that requires a means to reduce the role of executive functioning in the brain. And when you do that, you demonstrate it by saying such incredibly stupid things as Bruggencate does.
This is so beautiful, it made me weep. Privately, publicly, and without shame. What an idiot this dude is. I would LOVE to see him debate WLC, in 3D and in HD. Education in many places in America equals this: “Why is X true, Johnny, and not Y?” “Because……..AMERICA! And….because……GOD!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!” “Thanks, Johnny. That’s two A’s you’ve earned. One for being correct, and the other for being correct loudly.”
I read once (somewhere, a long time ago, before PC was invented) that “Pregnancy is taking seriously that which was poked at you in fun”.
In this somewhat humourless age there are always folks who don’t get the joke, and John, I’m surprised to see a mind of your stature taking that clown seriously. Awwww, come on now …
Pure self-interest, you know—these are the people with their fingers on the biggest arsenals ever known, and they’re celebrating today, too: “In God We Trust” …
I’m sorry but my head is on my desk right now, and suddenly the weight of the atmosphere is too heavy for me to overcome. I will be back online shortly. In the meantime please carry on, I will be fine, eventually.
I’ll refrain from calling you “White-White” until I see you dance. You see, I thought I was White-White until I came to Brazil and realised it wasn’t that I couldn’t dance, rather the case that i’d been trying to dance to all the wrong music 😉
Hell that might be what’s wrong with me, the wrong music! I have had two left feet since I was 3. Could not dance if my life depended on it. But if you need a guitar player, I’m your guy. Go figure…
Maybe I just need to go to Brazil and see if I can dance to the music there. I might need help getting permission from the wife, how much Tequila do you have?
Someone will go to hell for that, and/or get growled at.
Makes me wonder about the Pope’s merry minions running around in those dresses all day—possibly working out with the Swish Guard? Perhaps the Holy Church would have been saved billions if they’d just watched that video … in Sydney, Ireland, New York (actually: everywhere).
But don’t show it to the devout. Christians especially can be unforgiving and bit hesitant when turning the other cheek is called for …
There are so many great paradoxes in Christianity, thanks for bringing this one to light. That’s awesome. My all time favorite is still:
Doubter: Why didn’t God just make everyone good so they can go to heaven?
Christian: Because God gave us free will so we could choose to be good.
So the Doubter foolishly goes ahead and makes his choice to be good and believe in God. Somehow unhappy things still seem to happen in his life, leaving him angry, depressed and wondering why he isn’t rewarded for his faith.
Doubter: Bad things still happened to me, why?!
Christian: Don’t worry. God has a plan for you.
Doubter’s head explodes because he wonders why he has free will if God also has a plan! lol
Doubter: Why didn’t God just make everyone good so they can go to heaven?
Christian: God chose his elect out of a mass of fallen humanity which is his prerogative
Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
Doubter: ?
Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions? Doubter: The Owner of All Infernal Names explains all. It is the explanation that exists without need for an alibi, scapegoat, hastily arranged apology, or laboured advocacy. Where the theologian, such as yourself, is forced to rescue an incompetent spirit who has, for one imaginative reason or another, lost total control of his creation, the gospel of the malevolent hand stands unchaste, uncontaminated, and inviolable. As an explanation for the world that has been, is, and will be, malevolence is complete. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are made clear without a cover story, inventive pretext, or decorative theodicy.
As an atheist I reject the idea that the universe has intention and thus reject the idea of evil. Actions which we feel as evil are often perpetrated by those who have mental disorders, suffered severe childhood trauma (especially in early childhood), indoctrinated, and/or uneducated or poorly educated. In many cases it is a confluence of factors. Nobody however is born wishing to cause harm to others and therefore it has to be learned.
Christian: God chose his elect out of a mass of fallen humanity which is his prerogative.
Doubter: How could it be established, that any of this is true on any even remotely objective level? Oh right – it is impossible and that is why faith is demanded by this alledged god by the threat of violence, in this life by the zealots or in the alleged next life by said god and his unnatural minions doing his bidding. But how could anyone call such a god “benevolent”?
Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
Doubter: What is evil? Is it the selfishness of an individual, any cause of suffering, or just braking a set of arbitrary rules as written by some obviously ignorant dudes sitting around in the desert and looking at sheep thousands of years ago? Nature is indifferent and unintelligent. There are causes for suffering in nature because of that. The cause of unnecessary suffering is definetively evil, if it is intended. Correct?
Following arbitrary rules about what is evil or good may stop the individual who follows them from doing harm, but this does not make the person moral. As then the person has not made moral choises about the consequenses of her/his choises. Especially so, if the person was motivated by a need to worship the giver of the arbitrary rules, or if the motive was to gain a personal reward, or to awoid arbitrary punishment. As an alledged afterlife in heaven, or in hell.
Did your god plan us to suffer, or not? Or did something go wrong in his perfect plan? Untill you have an explanation we can judge your god to be an evil god, because intent to cause suffering is evil and it is to be deemed unnecessary unless there is a valid reason. If your god does not give us reasons for our suffering, in all honesty we are only able to evaluate said god by the deeds of this particular god, right? By the results of the handywork of this alledged creator, we can not call it “benevolent” at all, but obviously malevolent. That is, if we can ever get any actual evidence or even remotely objective proof of it even existing.
That’s great! Lol I’ve asked about that one before too and was told that in heaven you’re in the presence of God so you would never choose to do evil. I guess only Lucifer got a big too big for his britches but that would never happen to a mere human. Lol
Doubter: What is evil? Is it the selfishness of an individual, any cause of suffering, or just braking a set of arbitrary rules as written by some obviously ignorant dudes sitting around in the desert and looking at sheep thousands of years ago? Nature is indifferent and unintelligent. There are causes for suffering in nature because of that. The cause of unnecessary suffering is definetively evil, if it is intended. Correct?
That does not even begin to answer the question. What right does an atheist have to call something *evil* if there is no objective standard for morality? Evil if it is a privation of the good, what is good? How do you avoid the problem of an infinite regress?
What right does an atheist have to call something *evil* if there is no objective standard for morality?
What right does an British or American imperial user have to call something *a meter” if there is no objective standard for measuring distance?
This tired old trope about some supposedly god-sanctioned ‘objective standard’ is so foolish that it belies the lack of critical effort to try to answer the question and realizing just how incredibly stupid it is. All human standards are relative. All religious standards are relative. All moral standards are relative. This isn’t news. It is fact.
As is the fact that The One True God, Allah, hates christian liars, and bald, effeminate, christians liars THE most. For to be a christian is bad, but to be a christian male, boasting of its hairlessness, is to welcome the flames of Hell upon one’s soul for eternity. Ms Bald christian here is an insult, not only to logic and reason, but to the very god she claims to worship. Those without reason and hair shall suffer for eternity in Hell. Christians like Ms. Baldy here will only learn this in Hell, a place she is destined for. When will lying christians like Ms baldy learn? When?
Is your assertion that “all human standards are relative” objectively true? Whether you are an ethical subjectivist or an epistemological subjectivist the problem remains the same. Once you have declared categorically that something is “thus and so” you have moved away from subjectivism. Are laws of logic a human standard? If so, is the principle of non-contradiction only subjectively true?
And here comes the word games right on cue to avoid my criticism of your trope. Now let’s watch you turn the meaning of ‘relative’ into ‘subjective’. Oh right. You already have.
Look, navigating reality is hard enough without obfuscating the terms we use to describe it and the relationships and emergent properties we use to communicate about it. My claim is easy enough to refute not with philosophical sophistry but with an example of a standard that is not relative.
you see, there’s nothing wrong with using a relative standard. In Grade one of public school I was taught that we can “measure at our leisure if the units stay the same.” That’s the primary element that is needed to accurately compare and contrast anything with anything: the SAME unit. And that’s why we can measure using Imperial just as accurately as we can using metric. It is not the objectivity or relativity of the standard that matters; it is using the same standard for the comparison. A moment of thinking this this through would allow you to grasp just how ridiculous is the trope you are peddling that only the ‘religious’ who believe in an ‘objective’ moral standard divinely sanctioned can care about ‘evil’. Such a proposition is dehumanizing to those on this blog who do indeed care about ‘evil’ without believing in some childish and superstitious notion of Oogity Boogity!. The hypothetical agency of Oogity Boogity! has exactly nothing to do with morality and everything to do with credulity and gullibility. In fact and practice, a much stronger argument can be made that religious believers in some divine objective moral standard cannot be equivalently autonomous moral agents to non believers but at best only good little jackbooted soldiers just following orders and trying to hide behind word games from legitimate, accurate, and meaningful criticism of their silly tropes.
@Bloggingbaldguy. Who ever said there is no objective standard for morality? What are you on about? When we are talking about morality we are referring to human interaction with reality and the harm and benefit analysis of our actions or inaction. That gives us plenty of objectivity. That is where morality stems from. Not some obscure unnatural arbitrary rules alledgedly dictated by authoritarianistic entities whose very existance has not been established on any even remotely objective level. Ever.
Allah says; ” Praise be the drunkards, for they shall understand the bullshit that is religion. Also, Christian apologists suck SO much, they create black holes of stupidity where ever they write. And, who could ever argue with Allah? Surely not bald christian a-holes who argue because,well, because that’s what bald christian a-holes do.
Atheism does not pre-suppose no intention in the universe. That’s an assumption that doesn’t follow from the premise. That is, if by atheist you mean you don’t believe in a God or gods.
Too bad he did not use the valid form of the argument, but this would have left you without low hanging fruit to lampoon, and think how miserable you would be without that to cheer you up.
If the Qu’ran says the Bible is true then the Qu’ran is false
The Qu’ran says the Bible is true
:. The Qu’ran is false
Low hanging fruit never cheers me up. I enjoy medium to high hanging fruit. It takes more effort to get to it, thus proving the existence of the christian god. Any home-schooled, American 7 year old can tell you that. Because……AMERICA!!!!! And, because……..GOD!!!!! God BLESS AMERICA!!!! $Amen$
Finally! A Christian who agrees with the perfection of the Qur’an! Read the truth and weep for the damnation of your soul, christian, for you will suffer an eternity of agony in the fires of Hell that Allah has planned for your blasphemous, lying, infidel ass! Read and weep, oh you who fail to see the reality of your own misguided evil: “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” (Surah 3:19) And from the Qur’an: 5:73: “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allâh is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no god but Allâh. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.”
Oh, the evil that resides in the breasts of christians astounds me! Do you not SEE? Do you not smell the stench of evil reeking from your lying bones? Damn you!!! Damn you to the Hell Allah has prepared for you!!! You evil, despicable monster!!! Damn your evil lies!!! Be prepared, liar!! You will burn for your evil!!!! There is NO God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet. There is NO Holy Book that is real but the sacred Qur’an!!! Damn your soul for eternity for the evil that resides in you. From the Qur’an: 9:29: “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not Islam as the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Convert, christian! Repent before the true God, or burn!!!
Christians can provide no valid argument as they are the bane of the One True God, Allah. Christians reek of sin, lies, blasphemy and evil, as is evidenced by this blasphemous christian here. He lampoons himself with his own blatant ignorance of the True God, Allah, and His True Word, The Qur’an. This christian proves, with his ignorance of reality, just how evil all christians are. His words are a stain on the souls of true religious people, and his lies have assured him a place in Hell where his flesh shall bubble from his bones repeatedly for all eternity. How DARE you talk of the Qur’an, you christian dog!!!!! How DARE you blaspheme God!!!! You will suffer, you lying dog. You will suffer for your lies and deception!!!! Have a nice day. 🙂
I am sorry, but that is not a valid argument. It is just absurd. If the Qur’an is false, so then is the testimony it gives to the truth value of the Bible. If the Qur’an is not false, then the Bible is just a prelude to the Qur’an. A prelude that is false in some issues. Or do you honestly think the Qur’an promotes the divinity of Jesus?
However, both books make wild unsubstantiated claims about unnatural forces, that have not been verified to exist by any even remotely objective methods. That is why faith = superstition is so important to all manner of religions.
The Truth for lying, deceitful christians, the true snakes in the Garden of Eden. From the Qur’an:
3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”
Bald man, if you seek to mention what The Qur’an says, then know The Qur’an. From the lying ignorant blasphemy that reeks from your infidel lips, I can see you do not. Do you enjoy the thought of the fire you will burn in for your ignorant stupidity, or are you lampooning reality to ensure your place in Hell? Christians like you are the reason Allah created Hell. Your stupidity in regards to the Truth offends Him and His followers. BEWARE, christian!!!! You are being watched, and you will suffer for your blasphemous lies!!! INFIDEL!!!!!!
Both books are also factually false, as we know the Pentateuch is inventive 6th and 7th century geopolitical myth, yet this historical fact was not known to either Muhammad or Jesus. Both characters blundered terribly naming Moses (for example) as a real historical character. That, in and by itself, annihilates all supernatural claim made.
I mean seriously, is there a valid form of this argument?
If the Batman says the Riddler is right, then Batman is wrong.
The Batman says the Riddler is right
: The Batman is wrong.
If both the Qu’ran and the Bible can not be true, and the Qu’ran says the Bible is true, does that make either of them right? If the Qu’ran says the Bible is right about something and the Bible does not say anything about the Qu’ran, because the particular god inspiring the writers of the Bible was equally oblivious of the
I guess, I have to see did Mat Dillahunty have a take on that.
If both the Qur’an and the Bible can not be true, and the Qur’an says the Bible is true, does that make either of them right?
If the Qur’an says the Bible is right about something and the Bible does not say anything about the Qur’an, because the particular god inspiring the writers of the Bible was equally oblivious of the future Qur’an as were the writers of the book, does that mean that either of the books is right about the other?
It seems to me there is no valid form to this argument. There is nothing valid about the claim that a lier gives validation through testimony to the truth of someone elses claims.
There is but One Truth for bald christians and it is from The Only True Holy Book Ever, The Qur’an: 3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”
BTW, NEVER speak of Batman in an example. Batman is REAL. Superman isn’t, so use him instead. WHAT is so hard about knowing that Batman is real, and Superman is just some made up shit? Is it REALLY that hard to see? Jeez, only christians are THIS dumb. Thanks, and have a lovely day. 😀
You are conflating formal validity with the truth value of the proposition. Do some reading on logic, since you posted on a forum regarding the ills of “Christian Logic” I would have thought you could recognize that arguing about the validity is far different than arguing about truth or falsity.
I would actually agree that the form of the argument that Sye used was invalid. That’s a far cry from arguing that his premises are false.
“is far different than arguing about truth” HOW DARE YOU SPEAK OF TRUTH, cHRISTIAN???!!!!! How dare a lying form of infidel vermin,who acts as if he knows The Qur’an, speak of ANY truth???? Hell awaits you. you lying dog!!!! Stop writing and STOP offending God. You are evil and a dog. Damn you for insulting Allah with your bullshit lies!!! How DARE you!!!! You infidel!!!! You evil dog!!!! Thanks, and have a nice day. 🙂
If the Lord of the Rings says the Silmarillion is true then the Lord of the Rings is false
The Lord of the Rings says the Silmarillion is true
:. The Lord of the Rings is false
There are numerous references in the Lord of the Rings to the Silmarillion, but in Silmarillion there are absolutely no comments about the Lord of the Rings, because the events of the Silmarillion are supposed to have taken place hundreds of years before the Lord of the Rings.
Such arguments are therefore nonsensical. Especially since we are talking about obvious works of fiction. But it works on historical documents also.
Even if Tacitus refers to Polybius as a reliable source, but Polybius, having lived hundreds of years before Tacitus, does not mention Tacitus, it does not make Tacitus any less reliable source than Polybius. However, neither of them prove by telling how true, or false the other is, that burning ships were flying over Italy during the Punic wars, or that there were dogheaded men beyond Sarmatia. And we are talking about sound historians subscribing to the integrity of telling only what they have been told or they have wittnessed by their own eyes. Even so, we should not take their word for anything supernatural or otherwise unnatural to have happened either, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Correct?
If Polybius and Tacitus disagree on something the one who is right between them is not “validated” by referring to Tacitus giving a compliment to Polybius being right about something else and Polybius not mentioning Tacitus.
If the Tacitus says the Polybious is true then the Tacitus is false
Tacitus says the Polybious is true
:. Tacitus is false
The entire argument is corrupt through and through. There is nothing logical, nor valid about it even in this form. Exept perhaps some of that “Christian logic”.
to me, i am dismissive of both koran and OT/NT. i am most dismissive of talmud.
plus, tho i admire discipline, i find most religious practices to be folly.
AND YET, in my most primal self in this incarnation am one who loves the idea of what the best jesus could have been. or was. and the bible simply imputes faults which he did not possess.
tho i am not really gnostic either due to errors of that faith.
but i do espouse two or so of their accepted reality.
1. that there is a benevolent god. but such god is not within the 3D imposed limits of human experience. the wholly benevolent one, of the pleroma (heaven), is the best representation of the god i know.
2. and, that there is a malevolent creator of this universe, obviously including this earth. such creator is also the operator of the daily experiences as we know them.
the malevolent one influences existence in such a way as to create hardship on MOST people.
the malevolent one is called the demiurge.
the minions of the demiurge are called archons. they thrive from human agony and suffering. they inhale adrenaline.
archons drive humanity apart. they bring into being persons known by their personalities as: psychopaths.
to me those are simple samples of my estimates. love is very important. especially the love of benevolence and the expressions of benevolence from each human. lastly i espouse an expectation of life after this incarnation. in that regard i suggest you consult my friend rich west. youtube: rich2150x. truly insightful tender raw and funny man.
So you’re a dualist, in the strictest sense. Did you get a chance to look over the book yet? The demiurge described there is massively more organised, yet does not share His creation with any other comparable spirit.
Out of interest, have you ever read Scott Adams’, God Debris?
What you wrote: a benevolent god and a malevolent one. Strict dualism would though mean these two forces are locked into a constant struggle with one another, but I don’t think that is what you’re saying.
You can get God’s Debris online, for free. Short book, only about 100 pages, and the idea it posits is, at the very least, not rationally absurd. I think you’d like it.
Stephen said you’d dug your teeth into the book. Any thoughts? He wrote me on Friday saying he was enjoying it, and I’m thrilled to have caught his attention. It’s not perfect, but as an introduction to a formalised “theology” I think it lays a foundation which anyone can build on. Anything and everything can be spun to support the thesis, and the beauty is, it requires no apologetics… Or what Dr Maarten Boudry (Ghent University) is calling “Aggravetics.” I think that’s brilliant. I actually heard yesterday that sometime in August the thesis is going to be presented at a philosophical conference sponsored by professors of Aalborg and Århus Universities (Belgium), so hopefully that kicks-off some formalised rebuttals within the Christian philosophy universe, which will be fun.
Kindle tells me that I’m only 26% through so I’ll reserve final judgment. However, thus far it is positively brilliant. You have a rhetorical flair that is reminiscent of David Foster Wallace. Everything he wrote (like your work thus far) left me demoralized as an amateur writer because I realized I Would never be able to scale the heights he attained. If you’ve ever read Infinite Jest or even his “Consider the Lobster” piece from Gourmet magazine, you’ll know what I mean.
I’m going to read them now. And thanks for the compliment, although I have to say, a part of the parody was simply mimicking 20th century natural theology works… a monsoon of adjectives 🙂
Let me know when you’re done, OK. Would love to continue this conversation, and to explore how we can spread the Good Word 🙂
Infinite Jest is a Herculean tome – great company for a trek in the Himalayas. Consider the Lobster is a morsel size example of how DFW could enliven the mundane.
Will definitely get back to you after I finish The Owner. Definitely a work that deserves to be widely disseminated and thrust in the faces of Craig, Turek et al.
Saw that one. Sye looked like a deluded man
LikeLike
I’m not sure if “deluded” fully captures the assclownery of the answer.
As the chairman of the Reformational Philosophy Association, Gerrit Glas, said: “[postmodern Christian philosophy is] often impenetrable”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess not everything in the Qu’ran is a lie, the bit about the bible being true. Conundrum solved.
Except that … truth is a as relative as the paper it is written on. At best it is a democratic agreement. At worst it is just some dude dictating it whilst brandishing a sword.
I did look up where apologist comes from: ἀπολογία, from ἀπολογέομαι, apologeomai, “speak in return, defend oneself”. At least I learned something here. My working week is done!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good timing, it is Friday, after all! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
fyi. anyone. my work week never ends. nor does it begin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
f (t)=exp (t) QED
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL
Statements like this confirm what the neurological research shows: “People with greater paranormal beliefs showed lower levels of executive function. These findings support studies suggesting that superstitious thinking involves some degree of dysfunction in the prefrontal cortex.” M. Spinella and O. Wain (2006)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bingo!
I wonder if we could organise a debate between Sye and William Lane Craig? Now that would be a circus of nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, bingo! “Christian” and “logic” are mutually exclusive terms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Granted, but it doesn’t stop the apologist getting them together in some kind of forced marriage 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forget that…a debate with Victoria and Sye. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think we made the same point. Yours was just more academic and eloquent. Must be my prefrontal cortex again 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Does the superstition cause the dysfunction?
LikeLike
Susan, this is just my opinion but I think it does. The reason I say this is because I used to be a believer, and I know, based on personal experience, that it’s reversible. We do have fMRI evidence of neural circuitry associated with critical assessment being deactivated by neurohormones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
is it superstitious to think that goodness can infect this universe??
if so, please say why.
LikeLike
Have these people been to school? (No, I don’t mean university, just your average basic school)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, in America they call it Homeschooling 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
LMAO
LikeLiked by 1 person
I met a Scottish couple in Tarifa who were homeschooling. Their kids were fine and they seemed to be giving them a well rounded education. At the time they were studying geography, history, Spanish, had just been to Morocco, and were observing raptors. I thought that was pretty impressive. I sure as hell knew none of that at a young age.
LikeLike
Ah, you’re referring to Homeschooling as practiced by the “rest” of the world. I’m talking about the Homeschooling practiced (predominantly) in the southern states of the U.S. One might call it, Special Ed
LikeLike
John, are you suggesting that critical thinking is taught in the average US public school? (I don’t have evidence either way.)
As far as the post goes, ROFL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really can’t say, Aggie (I’m not American), but does this video give me a hint?
LikeLike
Aggie, that was a joke 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
But this wasn’t.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/28/texas-republicans-oppose-teaching-kids-critical-thinking-in-school-because-it-undermines-parental-authority/
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s frightening. Promoting ignorance can never end well
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s no doubt that they are working towards a theocracy. By now I’m sure you’ve heard that Texas textbooks now teach public school students that the Founding Fathers based the Constitution on the Bible, and the American system of democracy was inspired by Moses. Last November, the Republican-controlled Texas State Board of Education voted along party lines 10-5 and approved the textbooks.
LikeLike
Well, let’s just see these kids trying to get employed in the real world. One thing’s for sure, the owners of Liberty University must be salivating with the prospect of so many potential paying “students”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You why they did? Because….AMERICA!!!!! And…because….GOD!!!!! God bless America!!!! 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL you got me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
American homeschooling means “making little clones of oneself out of fear”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like that.
LikeLike
Yes but it didn’t take. You can go to school, get good grades, and yet never learn to reason, to think clearly. I actually didn’t learn to fully reason until college when I really examined all the writings of those (like Aristotle) who codified logic and reason for all. I did have enough reasoning ability from the time I was a little one not to ever sound remotely like this guy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me fix that for you:
“The Koran says the Bible is true, the Koran and the Bible cannot both be true, therefore either the Bible or the Koran is false. If the Bible is true, then the Koran would also have been true because it is correctly states that the Bible is true, and that is impossible. Therefore, the Bible is false, and since the Koran says it’s true, the Koran is false as well. Ergo, both are false.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
And with that, I award you an honoury Doctorate of Theology from Liberty University! Congratulations! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh wow, thank you, it’s such an honor! (I was going to ask you for the diploma, but then I realized that there probably shouldn’t be any tangible evidence for a theology degree.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
When is the graduation? I would like to address the graduates
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hell, I’ll found my own University just to hear your speech!
LikeLike
You should find out the requirement of founding a divinity university
LikeLike
The Cult of the Giant Red Shoe could get accreditation in the U.S. Arch has a fantastic photo of the “campus” of an “accredited” bible university in the States… It’s a shed on a dirty hill. Ask him for it, its hillarious.
LikeLike
We already have a campus name. I think we should involve Arch, get accreditation and announce the graduation date. I am going to start working on the speech
LikeLiked by 1 person
Huh? LOL!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Baffling, right?
LikeLike
They get themselves into traps by asserting that everything is completely true or completely false. You can just sit back and predict the day people stop believing simply because of the inflexibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone ever notice the similarity to the Star Trek episode “A Piece of the Action” which first aired in 1968? There was a planet on which the entire society was based on a book which was accidentally left behind (a la Cargo Cults). No one ever says it, but most Christians and Muslims don’t worship a deity….THEY WORSHIP A BOOK.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t seen that episode, but I’m thinking I should.
LikeLike
John, you have to if only for the game of “fizbin”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see its on Youtube!
LikeLike
Matt, that was great! Just watched it. Brilliant. Chicago Mobsters… “It’s THE Book!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t ya just love Bill Shatner’s Chicago mob accent in that episode? “Deez ‘er guys and dem der gals.” I LOVE Star Trek and Shatner. He’s my Jesus, Man! He’s my Jesus!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What an epic fail! And Neuronotes once again nails the reasons why. She is also quite right to bring up the reason why critical thinking is such a danger to religious parents trying to indoctrinate their kids. In spite of so many contrary claims about instructing people on how to be moral, what religion really teaches us is how not to be an autonomous moral agent but a immoral soldier of obedience. And to do that requires a means to reduce the role of executive functioning in the brain. And when you do that, you demonstrate it by saying such incredibly stupid things as Bruggencate does.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spot on, and Victoria never disappoints.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh dear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Said with an English accent, yes!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is so beautiful, it made me weep. Privately, publicly, and without shame. What an idiot this dude is. I would LOVE to see him debate WLC, in 3D and in HD. Education in many places in America equals this: “Why is X true, Johnny, and not Y?” “Because……..AMERICA! And….because……GOD!!!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!” “Thanks, Johnny. That’s two A’s you’ve earned. One for being correct, and the other for being correct loudly.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOL! “Being correct loudly,” I’m going to steal that 🙂
LikeLike
As long as you steal it loudly. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! The song lyrics came to me “Round and round I go, up and down I go, give it a spin, loving the spin I am in.
We have to stop calling these dudes apologists and start calling them Spin Doctors of Divinity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SDD’s, huh? I’ll second that
LikeLike
WWJD if all the SDD’s got STD’s and were shamed publicly by the CDC for endangering the public’s health by spreading them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have heard the video you posted called an argument for population reduction.
LikeLike
LOL! That might be a little extreme, but cause perhaps to take a second look at the level of education being handed out. At least… 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
good one Aggie!
Fun post John. Thank you Victoria for your input and links… which made me think of Margaret Atwood… Brrr.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And your point is … ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read once (somewhere, a long time ago, before PC was invented) that “Pregnancy is taking seriously that which was poked at you in fun”.
In this somewhat humourless age there are always folks who don’t get the joke, and John, I’m surprised to see a mind of your stature taking that clown seriously. Awwww, come on now …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh how I wish it were a joke, Dog
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
Pure self-interest, you know—these are the people with their fingers on the biggest arsenals ever known, and they’re celebrating today, too: “In God We Trust” …
… furthermore, brrrrr~!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In God We Trust…” since 1953. Prior to that it was as it was: “From Many, One.”
LikeLike
John you can’t call that logic without adding a descriptor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t the decriptor the Good Book itself? It’s circular logic 101
LikeLike
You should have added something like bad Christian reasoning or something but not just leave it at christian logic
LikeLiked by 1 person
Come on, it works like “Military Intelligence” 😉
LikeLike
hahahaha
LikeLiked by 1 person
Er … say what?
“I have a very gweat fwiend in Wome called …. Bigus Dickus.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Almost!
LikeLike
Wow. I don’t even…
What?
I’m sorry but my head is on my desk right now, and suddenly the weight of the atmosphere is too heavy for me to overcome. I will be back online shortly. In the meantime please carry on, I will be fine, eventually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bleach your brain, it might help 😉
LikeLike
Damn man, I’m such a white boy now bleaching my brain would make me invisble against a white backdrop!
I’m not “that” white really, but I feel like it sometimes, culturally.
Oh, I lol’d at the oxymoron “christian logic”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll refrain from calling you “White-White” until I see you dance. You see, I thought I was White-White until I came to Brazil and realised it wasn’t that I couldn’t dance, rather the case that i’d been trying to dance to all the wrong music 😉
LikeLike
Hell that might be what’s wrong with me, the wrong music! I have had two left feet since I was 3. Could not dance if my life depended on it. But if you need a guitar player, I’m your guy. Go figure…
Maybe I just need to go to Brazil and see if I can dance to the music there. I might need help getting permission from the wife, how much Tequila do you have?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blasphemer! It’s Cachaça here
LikeLike
I’ll admit I had to Google it, but it looks good. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oy vey. *headdesk*
LikeLiked by 1 person
Three times 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
This kind of logic gives my ass hole a nose bleed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
B’wahahaha! Very few things leave me lost for words, but you Sir have succeeded 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. I will now put on clean underpants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Tiffany's Non-Blog and commented:
lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheers!
LikeLike
I knew this was going to be a joke as soon as i saw the title. “Christian Logic”. You betcha.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It does sort of announce it 🙂
How have you been, Larry? You’ve been quiet of late.
LikeLike
I am hanging in. Have a health problem in my family that is keeping me occupied.
LikeLike
I’m sorry to hear that. I hope everything turns well.
LikeLike
Pingback: INDEPENDENCE DAY | FORESTALL
Here’s more Christian logic. 😉
“Give me that sweet sensation of an irrational rationalization.”
Hope everyone has a great weekend.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victoria, that was beautiful. Just beautiful. Now I’ll be dreaming all night of Catholic school gals having anal sex. God, I LOVE my life! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hehe
LikeLike
Ooooooh … that was nort-ee~!
Someone will go to hell for that, and/or get growled at.
Makes me wonder about the Pope’s merry minions running around in those dresses all day—possibly working out with the Swish Guard? Perhaps the Holy Church would have been saved billions if they’d just watched that video … in Sydney, Ireland, New York (actually: everywhere).
But don’t show it to the devout. Christians especially can be unforgiving and bit hesitant when turning the other cheek is called for …
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
Hahahaha! “There’s a hole in scripture that works really well…”
That. Is. Brilliant!
LikeLiked by 1 person
pretty damn funny. caught me off guard.
LikeLike
Victoria that was really good.
LikeLike
There are so many great paradoxes in Christianity, thanks for bringing this one to light. That’s awesome. My all time favorite is still:
Doubter: Why didn’t God just make everyone good so they can go to heaven?
Christian: Because God gave us free will so we could choose to be good.
So the Doubter foolishly goes ahead and makes his choice to be good and believe in God. Somehow unhappy things still seem to happen in his life, leaving him angry, depressed and wondering why he isn’t rewarded for his faith.
Doubter: Bad things still happened to me, why?!
Christian: Don’t worry. God has a plan for you.
Doubter’s head explodes because he wonders why he has free will if God also has a plan! lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doubter: Why didn’t God just make everyone good so they can go to heaven?
Christian: God chose his elect out of a mass of fallen humanity which is his prerogative
Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
Doubter: ?
LikeLike
Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
Doubter: The Owner of All Infernal Names explains all. It is the explanation that exists without need for an alibi, scapegoat, hastily arranged apology, or laboured advocacy. Where the theologian, such as yourself, is forced to rescue an incompetent spirit who has, for one imaginative reason or another, lost total control of his creation, the gospel of the malevolent hand stands unchaste, uncontaminated, and inviolable. As an explanation for the world that has been, is, and will be, malevolence is complete. Yesterday, today and tomorrow are made clear without a cover story, inventive pretext, or decorative theodicy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an atheist I reject the idea that the universe has intention and thus reject the idea of evil. Actions which we feel as evil are often perpetrated by those who have mental disorders, suffered severe childhood trauma (especially in early childhood), indoctrinated, and/or uneducated or poorly educated. In many cases it is a confluence of factors. Nobody however is born wishing to cause harm to others and therefore it has to be learned.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Christian: God chose his elect out of a mass of fallen humanity which is his prerogative.
Doubter: How could it be established, that any of this is true on any even remotely objective level? Oh right – it is impossible and that is why faith is demanded by this alledged god by the threat of violence, in this life by the zealots or in the alleged next life by said god and his unnatural minions doing his bidding. But how could anyone call such a god “benevolent”?
Christian: How does an atheist explain evil based on his own presuppositions?
Doubter: What is evil? Is it the selfishness of an individual, any cause of suffering, or just braking a set of arbitrary rules as written by some obviously ignorant dudes sitting around in the desert and looking at sheep thousands of years ago? Nature is indifferent and unintelligent. There are causes for suffering in nature because of that. The cause of unnecessary suffering is definetively evil, if it is intended. Correct?
Following arbitrary rules about what is evil or good may stop the individual who follows them from doing harm, but this does not make the person moral. As then the person has not made moral choises about the consequenses of her/his choises. Especially so, if the person was motivated by a need to worship the giver of the arbitrary rules, or if the motive was to gain a personal reward, or to awoid arbitrary punishment. As an alledged afterlife in heaven, or in hell.
Did your god plan us to suffer, or not? Or did something go wrong in his perfect plan? Untill you have an explanation we can judge your god to be an evil god, because intent to cause suffering is evil and it is to be deemed unnecessary unless there is a valid reason. If your god does not give us reasons for our suffering, in all honesty we are only able to evaluate said god by the deeds of this particular god, right? By the results of the handywork of this alledged creator, we can not call it “benevolent” at all, but obviously malevolent. That is, if we can ever get any actual evidence or even remotely objective proof of it even existing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s great. Here’s one I think you’ll appreciate: Christianity Dismantled in 38 Words
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s great! Lol I’ve asked about that one before too and was told that in heaven you’re in the presence of God so you would never choose to do evil. I guess only Lucifer got a big too big for his britches but that would never happen to a mere human. Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rautakyy
You wrote:
Doubter: What is evil? Is it the selfishness of an individual, any cause of suffering, or just braking a set of arbitrary rules as written by some obviously ignorant dudes sitting around in the desert and looking at sheep thousands of years ago? Nature is indifferent and unintelligent. There are causes for suffering in nature because of that. The cause of unnecessary suffering is definetively evil, if it is intended. Correct?
That does not even begin to answer the question. What right does an atheist have to call something *evil* if there is no objective standard for morality? Evil if it is a privation of the good, what is good? How do you avoid the problem of an infinite regress?
LikeLike
What right does an atheist have to call something *evil* if there is no objective standard for morality?
What right does an British or American imperial user have to call something *a meter” if there is no objective standard for measuring distance?
This tired old trope about some supposedly god-sanctioned ‘objective standard’ is so foolish that it belies the lack of critical effort to try to answer the question and realizing just how incredibly stupid it is. All human standards are relative. All religious standards are relative. All moral standards are relative. This isn’t news. It is fact.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As is the fact that The One True God, Allah, hates christian liars, and bald, effeminate, christians liars THE most. For to be a christian is bad, but to be a christian male, boasting of its hairlessness, is to welcome the flames of Hell upon one’s soul for eternity. Ms Bald christian here is an insult, not only to logic and reason, but to the very god she claims to worship. Those without reason and hair shall suffer for eternity in Hell. Christians like Ms. Baldy here will only learn this in Hell, a place she is destined for. When will lying christians like Ms baldy learn? When?
LikeLike
Is your assertion that “all human standards are relative” objectively true? Whether you are an ethical subjectivist or an epistemological subjectivist the problem remains the same. Once you have declared categorically that something is “thus and so” you have moved away from subjectivism. Are laws of logic a human standard? If so, is the principle of non-contradiction only subjectively true?
LikeLike
And here comes the word games right on cue to avoid my criticism of your trope. Now let’s watch you turn the meaning of ‘relative’ into ‘subjective’. Oh right. You already have.
Look, navigating reality is hard enough without obfuscating the terms we use to describe it and the relationships and emergent properties we use to communicate about it. My claim is easy enough to refute not with philosophical sophistry but with an example of a standard that is not relative.
you see, there’s nothing wrong with using a relative standard. In Grade one of public school I was taught that we can “measure at our leisure if the units stay the same.” That’s the primary element that is needed to accurately compare and contrast anything with anything: the SAME unit. And that’s why we can measure using Imperial just as accurately as we can using metric. It is not the objectivity or relativity of the standard that matters; it is using the same standard for the comparison. A moment of thinking this this through would allow you to grasp just how ridiculous is the trope you are peddling that only the ‘religious’ who believe in an ‘objective’ moral standard divinely sanctioned can care about ‘evil’. Such a proposition is dehumanizing to those on this blog who do indeed care about ‘evil’ without believing in some childish and superstitious notion of Oogity Boogity!. The hypothetical agency of Oogity Boogity! has exactly nothing to do with morality and everything to do with credulity and gullibility. In fact and practice, a much stronger argument can be made that religious believers in some divine objective moral standard cannot be equivalently autonomous moral agents to non believers but at best only good little jackbooted soldiers just following orders and trying to hide behind word games from legitimate, accurate, and meaningful criticism of their silly tropes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Bloggingbaldguy. Who ever said there is no objective standard for morality? What are you on about? When we are talking about morality we are referring to human interaction with reality and the harm and benefit analysis of our actions or inaction. That gives us plenty of objectivity. That is where morality stems from. Not some obscure unnatural arbitrary rules alledgedly dictated by authoritarianistic entities whose very existance has not been established on any even remotely objective level. Ever.
I really am too drunk for this…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Allah says; ” Praise be the drunkards, for they shall understand the bullshit that is religion. Also, Christian apologists suck SO much, they create black holes of stupidity where ever they write. And, who could ever argue with Allah? Surely not bald christian a-holes who argue because,well, because that’s what bald christian a-holes do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atheism does not pre-suppose no intention in the universe. That’s an assumption that doesn’t follow from the premise. That is, if by atheist you mean you don’t believe in a God or gods.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is the only definition, although the apologist is typically quite determined to add all sorts of other nuggets to it.
LikeLike
McDonald’s is selling Apologist Nuggets. They’re made out of whatever the hell you say they are when you buy them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm…I guess I disagree. If I don’t believe in a supernatural creator then who would I assign intention too?
LikeLike
Too bad he did not use the valid form of the argument, but this would have left you without low hanging fruit to lampoon, and think how miserable you would be without that to cheer you up.
If the Qu’ran says the Bible is true then the Qu’ran is false
The Qu’ran says the Bible is true
:. The Qu’ran is false
P–>Q (Modus ponens)
P
:. Q
LikeLike
Yes, too bad, I guess….
LikeLike
Low hanging fruit never cheers me up. I enjoy medium to high hanging fruit. It takes more effort to get to it, thus proving the existence of the christian god. Any home-schooled, American 7 year old can tell you that. Because……AMERICA!!!!! And, because……..GOD!!!!! God BLESS AMERICA!!!! $Amen$
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finally! A Christian who agrees with the perfection of the Qur’an! Read the truth and weep for the damnation of your soul, christian, for you will suffer an eternity of agony in the fires of Hell that Allah has planned for your blasphemous, lying, infidel ass! Read and weep, oh you who fail to see the reality of your own misguided evil: “The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” (Surah 3:19) And from the Qur’an: 5:73: “Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allâh is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no god but Allâh. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.”
Oh, the evil that resides in the breasts of christians astounds me! Do you not SEE? Do you not smell the stench of evil reeking from your lying bones? Damn you!!! Damn you to the Hell Allah has prepared for you!!! You evil, despicable monster!!! Damn your evil lies!!! Be prepared, liar!! You will burn for your evil!!!! There is NO God but Allah, and Mohammed is His Prophet. There is NO Holy Book that is real but the sacred Qur’an!!! Damn your soul for eternity for the evil that resides in you. From the Qur’an: 9:29: “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not Islam as the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Convert, christian! Repent before the true God, or burn!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Qur’an does NOT say the bible is true. Read and weep, Oh evil, lying christian, for yours are the words of an evil infidel. An infidel who is condemned to the fires of eternal Hell for his lies and evil ways. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEYQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmostmerciful.com%2Fquran-does-not-state-bible-is-true.htm&ei=8CeXVfvYOoG4sAWx6JOoBw&usg=AFQjCNFvjscmyGaEs0ntBfalHKnSJ_espQ&sig2=5DZbWCkIFEIggadxTRwBww&bvm=bv.96952980,d.b2w&cad=rja
LikeLiked by 1 person
Could you provide the argument in a “valid form”? Please do, if you can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rautakyy-look in my comment above it is in valid form.
LikeLike
Christians can provide no valid argument as they are the bane of the One True God, Allah. Christians reek of sin, lies, blasphemy and evil, as is evidenced by this blasphemous christian here. He lampoons himself with his own blatant ignorance of the True God, Allah, and His True Word, The Qur’an. This christian proves, with his ignorance of reality, just how evil all christians are. His words are a stain on the souls of true religious people, and his lies have assured him a place in Hell where his flesh shall bubble from his bones repeatedly for all eternity. How DARE you talk of the Qur’an, you christian dog!!!!! How DARE you blaspheme God!!!! You will suffer, you lying dog. You will suffer for your lies and deception!!!! Have a nice day. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am sorry, but that is not a valid argument. It is just absurd. If the Qur’an is false, so then is the testimony it gives to the truth value of the Bible. If the Qur’an is not false, then the Bible is just a prelude to the Qur’an. A prelude that is false in some issues. Or do you honestly think the Qur’an promotes the divinity of Jesus?
However, both books make wild unsubstantiated claims about unnatural forces, that have not been verified to exist by any even remotely objective methods. That is why faith = superstition is so important to all manner of religions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Truth for lying, deceitful christians, the true snakes in the Garden of Eden. From the Qur’an:
3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”
Bald man, if you seek to mention what The Qur’an says, then know The Qur’an. From the lying ignorant blasphemy that reeks from your infidel lips, I can see you do not. Do you enjoy the thought of the fire you will burn in for your ignorant stupidity, or are you lampooning reality to ensure your place in Hell? Christians like you are the reason Allah created Hell. Your stupidity in regards to the Truth offends Him and His followers. BEWARE, christian!!!! You are being watched, and you will suffer for your blasphemous lies!!! INFIDEL!!!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both books are also factually false, as we know the Pentateuch is inventive 6th and 7th century geopolitical myth, yet this historical fact was not known to either Muhammad or Jesus. Both characters blundered terribly naming Moses (for example) as a real historical character. That, in and by itself, annihilates all supernatural claim made.
LikeLike
I mean seriously, is there a valid form of this argument?
If the Batman says the Riddler is right, then Batman is wrong.
The Batman says the Riddler is right
: The Batman is wrong.
If both the Qu’ran and the Bible can not be true, and the Qu’ran says the Bible is true, does that make either of them right? If the Qu’ran says the Bible is right about something and the Bible does not say anything about the Qu’ran, because the particular god inspiring the writers of the Bible was equally oblivious of the
I guess, I have to see did Mat Dillahunty have a take on that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I meant to say:
If both the Qur’an and the Bible can not be true, and the Qur’an says the Bible is true, does that make either of them right?
If the Qur’an says the Bible is right about something and the Bible does not say anything about the Qur’an, because the particular god inspiring the writers of the Bible was equally oblivious of the future Qur’an as were the writers of the book, does that mean that either of the books is right about the other?
It seems to me there is no valid form to this argument. There is nothing valid about the claim that a lier gives validation through testimony to the truth of someone elses claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is but One Truth for bald christians and it is from The Only True Holy Book Ever, The Qur’an: 3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”
BTW, NEVER speak of Batman in an example. Batman is REAL. Superman isn’t, so use him instead. WHAT is so hard about knowing that Batman is real, and Superman is just some made up shit? Is it REALLY that hard to see? Jeez, only christians are THIS dumb. Thanks, and have a lovely day. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again, the form of the argument is valid. Whether or not it is true is another matter altogether.
LikeLike
You are conflating formal validity with the truth value of the proposition. Do some reading on logic, since you posted on a forum regarding the ills of “Christian Logic” I would have thought you could recognize that arguing about the validity is far different than arguing about truth or falsity.
I would actually agree that the form of the argument that Sye used was invalid. That’s a far cry from arguing that his premises are false.
LikeLike
“is far different than arguing about truth” HOW DARE YOU SPEAK OF TRUTH, cHRISTIAN???!!!!! How dare a lying form of infidel vermin,who acts as if he knows The Qur’an, speak of ANY truth???? Hell awaits you. you lying dog!!!! Stop writing and STOP offending God. You are evil and a dog. Damn you for insulting Allah with your bullshit lies!!! How DARE you!!!! You infidel!!!! You evil dog!!!! Thanks, and have a nice day. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the Lord of the Rings says the Silmarillion is true then the Lord of the Rings is false
The Lord of the Rings says the Silmarillion is true
:. The Lord of the Rings is false
There are numerous references in the Lord of the Rings to the Silmarillion, but in Silmarillion there are absolutely no comments about the Lord of the Rings, because the events of the Silmarillion are supposed to have taken place hundreds of years before the Lord of the Rings.
Such arguments are therefore nonsensical. Especially since we are talking about obvious works of fiction. But it works on historical documents also.
Even if Tacitus refers to Polybius as a reliable source, but Polybius, having lived hundreds of years before Tacitus, does not mention Tacitus, it does not make Tacitus any less reliable source than Polybius. However, neither of them prove by telling how true, or false the other is, that burning ships were flying over Italy during the Punic wars, or that there were dogheaded men beyond Sarmatia. And we are talking about sound historians subscribing to the integrity of telling only what they have been told or they have wittnessed by their own eyes. Even so, we should not take their word for anything supernatural or otherwise unnatural to have happened either, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Correct?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Polybius and Tacitus disagree on something the one who is right between them is not “validated” by referring to Tacitus giving a compliment to Polybius being right about something else and Polybius not mentioning Tacitus.
If the Tacitus says the Polybious is true then the Tacitus is false
Tacitus says the Polybious is true
:. Tacitus is false
The entire argument is corrupt through and through. There is nothing logical, nor valid about it even in this form. Exept perhaps some of that “Christian logic”.
Got to go, too drunk to write. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
if the Quran is false, how can what it says be true?
LikeLike
And here I thought I was the blonde one! Thanks for making me feel better John. 😆
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I didn’t see that coming! Nicely played 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
😆 Just a blonde moment I guess. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, you did it again! You having Brazilian coffee this morning? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish! 😆
LikeLiked by 1 person
to me, i am dismissive of both koran and OT/NT. i am most dismissive of talmud.
plus, tho i admire discipline, i find most religious practices to be folly.
AND YET, in my most primal self in this incarnation am one who loves the idea of what the best jesus could have been. or was. and the bible simply imputes faults which he did not possess.
tho i am not really gnostic either due to errors of that faith.
but i do espouse two or so of their accepted reality.
1. that there is a benevolent god. but such god is not within the 3D imposed limits of human experience. the wholly benevolent one, of the pleroma (heaven), is the best representation of the god i know.
2. and, that there is a malevolent creator of this universe, obviously including this earth. such creator is also the operator of the daily experiences as we know them.
the malevolent one influences existence in such a way as to create hardship on MOST people.
the malevolent one is called the demiurge.
the minions of the demiurge are called archons. they thrive from human agony and suffering. they inhale adrenaline.
archons drive humanity apart. they bring into being persons known by their personalities as: psychopaths.
to me those are simple samples of my estimates. love is very important. especially the love of benevolence and the expressions of benevolence from each human. lastly i espouse an expectation of life after this incarnation. in that regard i suggest you consult my friend rich west. youtube: rich2150x. truly insightful tender raw and funny man.
all for now: mayan seeking the divine mind.
LikeLike
So you’re a dualist, in the strictest sense. Did you get a chance to look over the book yet? The demiurge described there is massively more organised, yet does not share His creation with any other comparable spirit.
Out of interest, have you ever read Scott Adams’, God Debris?
LikeLike
JZ.
i have not read ‘god debris’. never heard of it til now.
i am catching up w your work.
dualist why say??
MLC/SDM
LikeLike
What you wrote: a benevolent god and a malevolent one. Strict dualism would though mean these two forces are locked into a constant struggle with one another, but I don’t think that is what you’re saying.
You can get God’s Debris online, for free. Short book, only about 100 pages, and the idea it posits is, at the very least, not rationally absurd. I think you’d like it.
LikeLike
I don’t believe he believes what he’s saying. He can’t find a logical out, and so seeks to baffle (and fails).
LikeLiked by 1 person
A micro Gish Gallop, agreed 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on The Step Back and commented:
Logic?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Knucklehead like that make me glad I’m a Catholic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL!
LikeLike
John, you know something is very wrong when our good friend agrees with you
LikeLike
LikeLike
Yep
LikeLike
English philosopher Stephen Law provided a succinct yet effective strategy for dealing with Sye back in 2008: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.ca/2008/08/sye-dim-presuppositinalism.html
BTW, it was Stephen who alerted me to The Owner of All Infernal Names. We are both really enjoying it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, welcome, and nice to meet you
An “addled mind,” I like that, and certainly apt.
Stephen said you’d dug your teeth into the book. Any thoughts? He wrote me on Friday saying he was enjoying it, and I’m thrilled to have caught his attention. It’s not perfect, but as an introduction to a formalised “theology” I think it lays a foundation which anyone can build on. Anything and everything can be spun to support the thesis, and the beauty is, it requires no apologetics… Or what Dr Maarten Boudry (Ghent University) is calling “Aggravetics.” I think that’s brilliant. I actually heard yesterday that sometime in August the thesis is going to be presented at a philosophical conference sponsored by professors of Aalborg and Århus Universities (Belgium), so hopefully that kicks-off some formalised rebuttals within the Christian philosophy universe, which will be fun.
LikeLike
Kindle tells me that I’m only 26% through so I’ll reserve final judgment. However, thus far it is positively brilliant. You have a rhetorical flair that is reminiscent of David Foster Wallace. Everything he wrote (like your work thus far) left me demoralized as an amateur writer because I realized I Would never be able to scale the heights he attained. If you’ve ever read Infinite Jest or even his “Consider the Lobster” piece from Gourmet magazine, you’ll know what I mean.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m going to read them now. And thanks for the compliment, although I have to say, a part of the parody was simply mimicking 20th century natural theology works… a monsoon of adjectives 🙂
Let me know when you’re done, OK. Would love to continue this conversation, and to explore how we can spread the Good Word 🙂
LikeLike
Infinite Jest is a Herculean tome – great company for a trek in the Himalayas. Consider the Lobster is a morsel size example of how DFW could enliven the mundane.
Will definitely get back to you after I finish The Owner. Definitely a work that deserves to be widely disseminated and thrust in the faces of Craig, Turek et al.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forgot to leave link for Consider the Lobster: http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_lobster.html
LikeLike
Brilliant, thanks!
LikeLike
Conclusive syllogism? …. aberrant fallacy! excellent finding John… Best of luck!
LikeLiked by 1 person