October 2010 Screwballs

[Rational Gaze]

Hooray for annihilationism!

You mean they don't get to suffer the constant playing of Justin Bieber songs? Being annihilated would be more of a blessing in that scenario.

[Rayado]

Aquinas would be surprised to find that we've found yet another absolutely simple being - for in this guy, there is no distinction between existence and fail.

Perhaps you just discovered the content of Aquinas' vision that caused him to stop writing: he saw the future, and the idiots that would be trying to refute him.

[Rational Gaze]

Perhaps you just discovered the content of Aquinas' vision that caused him to stop writing: he saw the future, and the idiots that would be trying to refute him.

Trying? That is too hopeful of a verb to apply to people like Composer when joined with words such as: 'refute', 'do well', 'suceed', etc.

[jpholding]

A few items starting with an email...

You would think you would have learned by now, Farell Till has made you look like the idiot you are on so many occasions that you would do well to just keep your mouth shut. You offer no evidence for anything you say, but merely attempt to interpret the bible book of [deleted] to suit your own needs. And no, I do not want to give you any money.

Wow what a complex argument. I'm floored.

Meanwhile, over on Thommy's blog, DJ's drone Valerie Tarico has whined in:

I continue to marvel at the level of aggressive energy that comes out of some apologists toward people with other views. Last week my husband asked me if I had seen a set of personal, ad hominim slurs on my intelligence and morals at a Christian site called First Things, that until the moment I had never heard of. It didn't seem that the writer had even read my arguments, let alone engaged them. My husband was more bothered by it than I was, but I do have to say I was surprised to see it in an actual blog post rather than simply a comment thread. Sites like ExChristian.net or even The Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance get very ugly emails. But that is different than such words coming from someone who seeks to maintain a position as a Christian leader.

What suprises me most about Holding's words is not that he would have such reactions; human is human; but that he would not have the self awareness to realize what he is telling the world about himself and his god when he says such things in writing.

That's Tarico the Dip -- master at saying nothing of substance in as many words as possible. Say Val -- how about the "aggressive energy" that came out of your slave driver DJ when he posted that nekkid Jesus picture? And you're whining about ex-christian.net getting ugly emails when they're full of the ugliest venom against Christians anywhere on the Web? Have you have your hypocrisy vaccination lately?

I know what I'm telling the world Val..the truth. Reality. Especially about an incompetent like you who uses some backwards self-pub job by an apostate preacher as a resource.


Thommy too is having a fit:

Holding appeals to Jesus' treatment of the Pharisees in defense of his treatment of wolves like me. Problem is, Jesus was actually good at challenge/riposte. Jesus' quips stung and shamed his opponents. Conversely, the only person Holding shames is himself.

Aw....poor Thommy want his ba ba? I beat prison inmates at the dozens, Thommy. You wouldn't know a good insult, and you see one every morning in the mirror.

Thommy is also claiming re his fabricated sig line:

Um, no. I wrote it specifically for Holding, and I do not have a signature attached to any of my emails, as is evidenced by every single other email I've ever sent Holding (and everybody else). What was that he said about playing with the truth

Yeah sure Thommy. Feed us another line of bull. There's such a thing as NOT adding your standard line, moron. But even if I'm wrong, and it isn't a standard postscript you use, the notion that you attached that as some sort of personalized close is laughable in the extreme. You're a kiss up, Thommy. You try to evade criticism (as you did with AP here as well) by pretending to find common ground with those who would paste you to the wall. Too bad, Thommy.

Remember, Thommy, I'm smarter than you -- which is why I was able to get around your childish attempt to stop me quoting you here. You see, Thommy has made it so that you can't right-click and copy and paste from his site now -- obviously trying to make it harder to expose him like this. Nice try Thommy...but you arrive at this battle of wits and scholarship not unarmed but, well...stark naked!

BTW you shown your little kid that wonderful post Loftus made for "Blasphemy Day" yet? I'm sure she's eager to learn from some new friends you've picked up as fine moral examples.

[Rayado]

So will someone explain to him what the "Print Screen" button on a keyboard does? He might be able to disable right-click function but he can't exactly prevent someone from taking a screencap.

[wildrow12]

Oh dear. See if you can spot the irony:

http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2006...88593265263879

Ha!

Now here is a blast from the past!

Stumbled on this during random Googling - I was trying to find any kind of response from A C Grayling on the recent, somewhat one-sided storm-in-a-teacup between John Shook and Jerry Coyne. There might be a blog post for you guys on that topic.

Back to the topic of this thread, however: Theology.

I'm (clearly) no expert. But occasionally a believer will direct me to a theologian or a theological argument. Kalaam Cosmological, Ontological, Fine-tuning, and (urgh) Pascal's Wager seem to be the most commonly recurring themes.

Whenever I pick up a work of theology I start out feeling a mix of curiosity, trepidation (this might be the one to prove me wrong, oh no!) and an uncertain amount of intellectual bloodlust.

Whenever I put down a work of theology, I'm usually left with a mix of frustration at having wasted my time, along with a certain amount of smug schadenfreude.

Each piece of theology I've read has had multiple flaws; but there is one flaw in particular that I've found to be common to all of them.

They have all assumed God's existence as a premise. Oftentimes as a hidden premise, particularly in the cases of arguments from analogy. But all the same, the assumption is there.

Well... To be fair, I suppose that last statement isn't entirely true. Pascal's Wager doesn't contain that particular fallacy of assumption. But there are plenty of reasons for dismissing the Wager anyway - it's not the most inspiring of exceptions.

Any theological argument that relies on this fallacy can only become persuasive after someone is a believer. Such arguments are not themselves good reasons to believe.

Again: I'm hardly an expert on theology, far from it. I'm novice-armchair level at best. I don't deny the existence of good theological arguments that don't commit this fallacy. I just don't know what they are.

That said - I've often asked believers to give me an example of some theology that doesn't fall prey to a fallacy of assumption in this way. Mostly they give me a blank look, being even less familiar with theology than I am.

The ones that do give me a response usually give the same old dusty arguments I've come across time and time again. They might be polished up in academese, but the shape of the furniture doesn't change just because you drape an attractive sheet over it.

If a theological argument assumes God's existence as a premise, then I don't need to engage with it to dismiss it for being logically unsound as an argument that attempts to conclude with God's existence.

If there are any theological works that don't commit these fallacies of assumption, where should I look? Again: I don't deny that such an argument might exist. It's just that no believer has ever offered me one yet, and I've been asking for a while now.

Also: If a believer doesn't require an understanding of advanced theology to justify their belief, then why must atheists require a similar understanding to justify their non-belief?

Very interested to hear any responses.

[MaxVel]

More 'sophisticated argumentation' from Loftus over at dangerous idea:

Methinks people have blasted the OTF without thinking about it here.

Again, I should charge $10 per comment. Vic, how about it, I mean after all you seem to have thought about the OTF more than most people. Why then should I be the one informing them about it here. After all this is YOUR blog. Can't do it eh?

Now I gotta ask why, especially since you claim to be my superior.

Again, this is basic stuff. That's all it will ever be, basic stuff. It's the kind of stuff that destroys your faith though, so I understand why you just don't get it. Brainwashed people cannot understand even the most basic stuff you see.

Sorry to be you.

$10 per post sound good to you?

Now let's get this straight just so I know. You are a philosopher of religion, right? You teach philosophy of religion classes, right? In those classes do you or don't you teach both sides of an issue fairly and have the students discuss them under you knowing glance? Do you, or don't you?

Well then, I am you co-teacher here since you utterly fail to present the opposing side fairly. That should cost you some money.

Please, go over to my blog and put a few pennies in my jar. I'll take what I can get.

Classic Loftus behaviour: when people raise objections that he can't address, it's because they're deluded, ignorant and brain-washed. it couldn't possibly be becuase Loftus' argument is not as strong as he thinks it is, could it?

<Thinks, Loftus-style> No, that's impossible.

[Raphael]

More 'sophisticated argumentation' from Loftus over at dangerous idea:



Classic Loftus behaviour: when people raise objections that he can't address, it's because they're deluded, ignorant and brain-washed. it couldn't possibly be becuase Loftus' argument is not as strong as he thinks it is, could it?

<Thinks, Loftus-style> No, that's impossible.

wot? John is resorting to attempting to make people pay for any comments he makes.


The man is utterly reprehensible.

[MaxVel]

wot? John is resorting to attempting to make people pay for any comments he makes.


The man is utterly reprehensible.

I don't find him so... I think he's just sad and pathetic, and his behaviour** shows the frailty of his worldview. He's thrashing around desperately, like a man in quicksand.


** You know, the lying, the unfaithfulness, openly admitting he'll do whatever it takes to persuade people to his view, the stream of insults and attempts to belittle those who disagree with him, the relentless self-promotion....

By the way, have you bought his book yet?

[Raphael]

I don't find him so... I think he's just sad and pathetic, and his behaviour** shows the frailty of his worldview. He's thrashing around desperately, like a man in quicksand.

well you see see I take this: the lying, the unfaithfulness, openly admitting he'll do whatever it takes to persuade people to his view, the stream of insults and attempts to belittle those who disagree with him, the relentless self-promotion + his picture about a homosexual Jesus + his posts mocking people with disabilities = 1 reprehensible person

By the way, have you bought his book yet?

Nope, I prefer to use softer paper in the toilet.

[MaxVel]

well you see see I take this: the lying, the unfaithfulness, openly admitting he'll do whatever it takes to persuade people to his view, the stream of insults and attempts to belittle those who disagree with him, the relentless self-promotion + his picture about a homosexual Jesus + his posts mocking people with disabilities = 1 reprehensible person

Well, I'm not saying he's a model of good character.... I guess I just see him as broken, like all of us, and desperately struggling against the one thing that can make him whole. Sad and pathetic, like a beaten puppy.

Nope, I prefer to use softer paper in the toilet.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind, as long as it was a sale.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

DJ is just incapable of admitting wrong. He committed a great sin and instead of repenting and confessing it and admitting he was the one who really did wrong, he's trying to justify himself without the justification of God. Hence, he has to be right. He just has to be!

[Teluog]

anti-screwball to my new church for having a young-adult guy lead a young adult small group on Lewis' Mere Christianity, and letting him lead one on narcissism, and for more people introducing themselves to me, and for the young adult pastor's vision (very Bible-centered and he promotes reading, and is currently reading Keller's Reason for God and an N.T. Wright book) for the full time associate pastor position that he wants to have at the church now to do young adult ministry, Christian education (will abandon his seminary position and has a ThD), leadership training, and his willingness to maybe help me do field placements and help me get plugged in with some scholars he knows if/when I work my way up the scholarly arena

[Teluog]

anti-screwball to my pneumatology/ecclesiology teacher for pointing out to the class 2 minutes ago that there was no charismatic/ecstatic experiences in Jesus' life (in the context of his implications that Jesus is our model to live by)

[jpholding]

So will someone explain to him what the "Print Screen" button on a keyboard does? He might be able to disable right-click function but he can't exactly prevent someone from taking a screencap.

Yep. And there's other ways too...

Thommy posted this now, which he claims is his last comment...

A final word on why it's not my place to judge John Loftus's behavior
(whether or not it's immoral is irrelevant):

Irrelevant huh? Sure thing Pilate. Whether what the Jewish leaders did is immoral is "irrelevant" so I'll wash my hands of my social and moral responsibility.

For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it
not those who are inside that you are to judge? God will judge those
outside. (1 Cor 5:12-13a)

According to Paul, it is permissible to associate with those outside
the church who are immoral, because it is not our place to judge them.

What a trash can exegesis that is! Following through on that, Thommy, it means a Christian could never be a judge, a lawyer, a policeman, a meter maid, or even an official at the Westminster Dog Show. And Paul himself would be a hypocrite for saying pagans do immoral things in place like Rom. 1. Are you really that stupid? (Don't answer: We already know.) What a sorry way to deny his social and moral responsibilities.

That said, what of this passage? The prior portion is where Paul speaks of not associating with people of the world who are fornicators, etc. -- in collectivist terms, this would have to do with having membership in their social support group.It doesn't mean total disassociation, for that would be impossible (cf. 5:10), but it would mean not depending on them for meeting your social needs; that would be the church's job as its own ingroup.

The further context has to with internal church discipline, and the man who committed evil and needed to be expelled from the ingroup. (5:13). It is, as Witherington puts it, a judicial process within the ekklesia.

In that light, Paul's meaning is that we have no place participating in the equivalent judicial processes in other ingroups than the ekklesia. In other words, the application here would be that Thommy would be an idiot to go to a Freethinkers' meeting and try to get Loftus judged for being a sinner. Note that Paul says, "with such an one no not to eat" -- which refers to fellowship meals conducted by social ingroups. The sinner was excluded from the ekklesia's fellowship meal and thus became again a part of the world. He was thereafter to be ignored, as though an exile -- and hence no longer subject to the judicial process of the ekklesia.

So in short, for Thommy to try to distort this into something that keeps him from declaring Loftus or any other person a sinner is simply trash scholarship.

And there's more to come:

According to Paul, a "reviler" is an immoral person, and any
professing Christian who reviles should be shunned by fellow
Christians. What is a reviler? A reviler is one who assails with
abusive language, one who is vituperative.

Abusive language: idiot, moral cesspool, loser, angry child, bovine
excrement, disgusting, sadistic, "Jerry's kids," etc.

According to Paul, then, Holding is not only immoral, but immoral in
precisely the sort of way that demands that other Christians
dissociate themselves from him.

Yeah right Thommy. Then Jesus is also an immoral reviler ("whitewashed tombs," etc) as is Paul ("I wish they'd castrate themselves", etc), Elijah ("maybe your God is on the toilet") and God Himself. Try again. The word used isn't found much in the NT (only twice in 1 Cor) but it is found used in the LXX to refer to a "quarrelsome wife" in Proverbs who is like a rainy day. So the defining factor appears to be: 1) constant nagging about 2) minor issues. Nothing to do with stamping out deceivers there.

Even if Loftus were as vituperative as Holding (some say he is), Paul
makes it clear: since Loftus is outside the fold, we are not to judge
him. Holding, however, who claims to be a brother in Christ, falls
under our jurisdiction.

So I have been wrong. He's been looking for me to admit that I've made
a mistake. Now I admit it. I committed a massive blunder. I've been
too easy on Holding.

Holding, you need to repent. You are behaving immorally and staining
the body of Christ with your revolting revile-ations.

As I should have done a while ago, I now shake the dust off my feet as
I leave Holdingville, in accordance with Paul's word in 1 Corinthians
5:11-13.

Well, be sure and go to John's next party, where the nekkid Jesus will be on display again. You'd probably like it better there anyway.

Bottom line: Stark is a garbage exegete whose interpretations are as fundamentalist as a Chick tract. He's looking for any excuse to evade his social and spiritual responsibility.

Which means I give him maybe 2 years before he deconverts.