When we respond to the transgender issue by pointing out that biology makes it clear that there are only two sexes, we are attacking a straw man.
Gender ideologues do not typically deny that sex is binary. What they deny is that our identity is limited to or determined by. In addition to our sex, we also have a gender and gender-identity. Gender is a social construct related to the different behavior and roles men and women play in society. Gender-identity is one’s perception and deeply felt experience of their gender. Most people’s gender and gender-identity matches their biological sex, but some people experience a mismatch. They may have a male gender-identity but a female body. In such cases, they should be considered a male because gender, not sex, gives us our identity. Some transgender people may desire to alter their body to match their gender, but others may be comfortable with their body. That’s why it’s perfectly legitimate to speak of men with uteruses and women with penises.
There can be a lot of different gender identities because gender is not tied to biology. As a social construct, gender is malleable. There can be as many genders as there are people because each person could see their role in society differently.
This is why you can’t undermine gender ideology by pointing to biology. Biology is largely irrelevant to gender ideology. The way to defeat gender ideology is by questioning its basic presuppositions:
- Why think gender is a real (ontological) category?
- It’s said that “feeling like a woman” is what makes a man a woman, but how could any man know what it feels like to be a woman? He would have to know how other women feel and then compare that to the way he feels. That’s impossible. He can only know how he feels, and he has no way of knowing if the way he feels is the same as the way women feel.
- What is a more reliable indicator of reality: feelings or biology?
- Why think that gender defines our identity rather than biology, particularly when biology is objective and gender is subjective? Our biology can’t be mistaken whereas our self-perceptions are often mistaken.
- Etc.
Thinking to Believe 
April 14, 2023 at 6:03 pm
Thanks for addressing this subject Jason, with all the madness that has resulted from people in positions of power and in Educational institutions, Entertainment, Social Media, and Printed press, affirming, trying to protect and even celebrating the irrational, illogical claims of the “trans” aspects of the homosexual agenda, it is extremely important that Christians and people who value morality and societal stability, not only intelligently and lovingly remain diligent in our response to the many who seek to destroy what is natural law, what is God established, what is most beneficial for humanity etc.
But we must also be proactive in our diligence to keep truth before the public. We cannot allow the irrational, illogical and deprived to become the norm. We must deal with anyone in the public arena who spews irrational, illogical ideas as sound truth, and we must do so in a manner that lovingly refutes and exposes their claims as irrational and illogical. When we fail to expose stupid as stupid, we aid their agenda to create their own realities at our expense.
When people who are mentally unstable are told that they are normal and fine, they begin to believe it, and then demand that all others not only believe it, but affirm it and celebrate it. When they fail to and do the opposite, they are perceived as hateful and dangerous to the unstable, and some of the unstable seek to retaliate to (in their unstable minds) protect themselves from being “erased”, devalued and persecuted.
Just as those who unjustly abuse, make fun of and “actually” verbally mistreat the unstable, are guilty, so also are all those who affirm, defend and celebrate mental instability as a good thing to be defended.
God help us when sick, immoral, God hating people, get into major powerful positions, and use them to do all they can to destroy truth and logic. End times indeed.
LikeLike
April 15, 2023 at 1:48 pm
exactly …………. they even tell on themselves — a woman trapped in a man’s body. this is the latest in a list proving the bible was correct — God has sent them a “strong delusion.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 18, 2023 at 9:53 am
Your summary of the the trans issue is remarkably accurate. But then you ended with this:
“This is why you can’t undermine gender ideology by pointing to biology. Biology is largely irrelevant to gender ideology. The way to defeat gender ideology is by questioning its basic presuppositions”
Why in the world would you want to “undermine” the trans position? These people are discriminated against and often physically attacked for no other reason than they have a gender identity that is different from their sex identity. They’re not hurting anyone, they’re not harming society, they just want to be the person they are psychologically.
One’s biological sex can be in conflict with one’s psychological sex for various reasons, including the fact that humans are complex systems and sometimes psychological wiring gets crossed. But even given that, so what if feelings are more subjective than physical characteristics? Are a person’s parental feelings for an adopted child any less valid just because the child isn’t biologically theirs? Or when you watch a fictional movie with characters who amuse, scare, attract or anger you, are your feelings any less genuine even though you know those characters are just actors following a script? Feelings generally matter more to people than biological facts, after all.
Transgender people already have a suicide rate far higher than the general population, and it’s largely because of hatred and bigotry directed at them by religious conservatives (often the same people who say they believe in religious freedom and freedom of choice). Why would you want to contribute to making their lives worse than it already is by attempting to “undermine” these people?
LikeLiked by 2 people
April 18, 2023 at 3:43 pm
Good column, Jason. According to the Chicago Tribune:
This story highlights the logical conundrum liberals face when they attempt to assert rest/shower/locker room access for transgender persons. Joseph Roman claims to be a boy, even though he’s a biological adult. If society accepts his minor-status claim, authorities will have to justify charging a boy as an adult in order to impose stiffer penalties for his assaults. Moreover, though minors cannot legally consent to sex, they are not sent to juvenile hall for “consensual” sex. What should happen if this “boy” has “consensual” sex with a girl? Consistency dictates that we treat him no differently than biological boys.
Recall that there are few, if any, government-level standards requiring proof that one is genuinely transgender. In other words, all a person has to do is merely claim to be male or female. There are no time, dress, or medical requirements to legally claim a gender. A person may enter an opposite biological sex facility whether he or she looks like Marilyn Monroe or John Wayne. The Left insists that biology should not determine access, and they equally insist that everybody accede to that claim by using the pronouns corresponding to the same. Lacking biological or medical standards, the door is open for everybody.
Back to the Joseph Romans of the world. If a man must be accepted as a woman on his claim that he is a she, and if we cannot appeal to biology, time or lifestyle, on what basis can we reject Roman’s claim? If he claims to be a boy, why shouldn’t we accept it? Why would biology be decisive in his case and not a transgender person’s? And what about the report from Washington state of men claiming to be women in order to be transferred to women’s prisons?
The obvious answer is that Roman’s claim should be rejected precisely because he is a biological adult. If psychologists certify that Roman is convinced he’s a child, then Roman clearly has a mental defect and needs to be kept away from children. Roman’s feelings are subordinate to public order and safety. Similarly, if a man is merely pretending to be a woman in order to get free looks in the locker room, he should be arrested. However, on what basis do we legally decide who’s pretending? A person with whom I was debating said that “ogling” should be a crime, but he would not define what that means. And if a man genuinely thinks that he’s a woman, he has a mental defect and needs treatment. We don’t need to violate everybody’s privacy rights to assuage mentally defective persons, especially since they comprise an extreme minority. In other words, it’s a solution in search of a problem.
Separate rest/locker/shower rooms were created to preserve privacy—something liberals used to believe in. The privacy rights of the vast majority should not be trashed to satisfy a policy that exposes women to every pervert in the land.
LikeLike
April 19, 2023 at 4:42 am
Scalia, what you’re implying is that transgender people should not be accommodated in any way because of the occasional problem that occurs because of it. Conservatives used the same sort of arguments against gay rights by claiming gays would sexually assault straight people if they were allowed in locker rooms. To be sure, that HAS happened, but only extremely rarely, and the solution was clearly never to require some sort of test to prove heterosexuality or amp up hatred of gays. Existing laws against sexual assault suffice.
Furthermore, even though straight men are overwhelmingly the people most likely to commit sexual assault (just look at the massive numbers of straight Catholic priests revealed to have sexually assaulted children throughout history), we don’t restrict men’s rights to be around women and children.
My point is that the knee-jerk reaction against doing anything to help accommodate transgender people (even though they have been productive members of societies for many thousands of years) isn’t the answer. When it comes to social issues, conservatives have almost always been on the wrong side of history—including slavery, minorities and women voting, civil rights, and so on. Remember how conservatives freaked out about gay marriage, claiming it would destroy society (even though other countries had already had same-sex marriage for years without any ill effects)? It turns out helping the traditionally marginalized, discriminated against and attacked become an accepted part of society doesn’t bring about the apocalypse.
Trans rights are new to our society, and so of course there will be teething problems and laws that need to be addressed on an individual basis. And there will ALWAYS be people who try to game the system. But considering the conservative record of constant alarmism and opposition to improving society for the downtrodden, persecuted and unjustly accused, I think it would be helpful to think twice before automatically throwing the marginalized under the bus.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 19, 2023 at 7:46 am
And Derek, as expected, doesn’t disappoint with missing the point again. At this point, it’s no longer surprising.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 5:56 am
Your post intended to illustrate the potential dangers of transgender rights to privacy rights. I responded by essentially suggesting we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Please indicate how I missed the point.
I called your bluff last time, and you made yourself look foolish when you were unable to show how I missed the point. So now you’re going to embarrass yourself again by pulling the same stunt? Why do you do this to yourself? THAT’s the point I don’t get. A reasoned argument is always going to be far more persuasive than storming off in a huff when someone disagrees with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 20, 2023 at 7:57 am
Dingbats are willingly ignorant. I am happy for any honest person to read the other thread and come to their own conclusions. Any honest person will see that you are an arrant liar. Your wounded pride notwithstanding, honest people will acknowledge the difference between being “unable to show” something and refusing to show something to somebody who is a proven liar.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 8:48 am
ONCE AGAIN I called your bluff and you failed to demonstrate how I’ve missed the point. This is just sad. How many times have I requested a simple answer from you, only to receive childish name-calling and petulance? I’m sorry, Scalia, but I’ve lost all respect for you. You’re not an honest interlocutor. Jason seems to be the only Christian here able to argue like an adult.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 9:48 am
Derek exemplifies the common behavior of all liars. If he were honest, despite any personal disdain for me, he would acknowledge the clear difference between being unable to provide evidence and refusing to provide it on the basis of prior conduct. Another poster by the name of Josh clearly saw Derek’s point-missing, as any objective reader would.
If Derek were honest, he would do as has been suggested he do multiple times: simply agree that the record stands for itself and that he’s perfectly willing to let others be the judge of the matter. He can’t do that because the previous “debates” prove beyond ambiguity that he’s a liar.
LikeLike
April 20, 2023 at 9:50 am
The links are HERE.
LikeLike
April 23, 2023 at 9:36 am
LOL! Apparently I live rent-free in your head. 😉
And since you’ve switched to third person to imply you’re responding to someone else, when you’re obviously responding to me (so transparent!), I’ll do you the honor of doing the same:
The reason Scalia won’t provide his evidence…again…is that he’s bluffing…again. Notice how he’s switched the subject from me missing the point to me being a liar? He’s counting on misdirection and the fact that few people are likely to be willing to wade through all those previous posts and discovering he wasn’t telling the truth about me missing the point (twice!). And like all dishonest people, he projects his own dishonesty onto his adversaries while playing the victim. Textbook narcissist: https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-self/2017/09/narcissistic-projection#4
Scalia is once again only interested in trying to score points instead of having a reasoned argument, and I don’t care to play that game. So, sadly, like the last thread, there’s no point in my continuing to even read his posts on this thread.
LikeLike
April 23, 2023 at 10:11 am
“When people who are mentally unstable are told that they are normal and fine, they begin to believe it, and then demand that all others not only believe it, but affirm it and celebrate it. When they fail to and do the opposite, they are perceived as hateful and dangerous to the unstable, and some of the unstable seek to retaliate to (in their unstable minds) protect themselves from being “erased”, devalued and persecuted.”
Well, not only do your claims directly contradict the actual science on the transgender topic, but it’s positions like yours that have caused transgender people to be marginalized, discriminated against, assaulted and even murdered. Their suicide rate is also over seven times greater than the non-transgender populace, and it’s all because of hostility toward them. This is what happens when you dehumanize people who happen to be psychologically wired differently than you by labeling them as unstable and retaliatory (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/transgender-teens-7-6-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide#Why-a-population-based-study?). That is not loving, it’s not caring, it’s hateful with awful consequences.
Why not live and let live? Christianity is suffering huge losses, in large part due to so many denominations demonstrating unnecessary and cruel intolerance toward LGBTQ people. According to a recent Pew poll, between 2009 and 2019 Christianity lost 11 million members in the US alone, dropping from 77% of the adult population to just 65% (since then it’s dropped to 64%). That’s well over ONE MILLION people per year who have left Christianity in the US alone. This is why thousands of churches are closing every year. It’s also why, over the same time period, the religiously unaffiliated have increased by almost THREE MILLION per year, now making them the largest religious category (just above evangelicals and Catholics).
That hemorrhaging of followers would surely abate if more Christians practiced the “love” part of Christianity over the “hate” part. Really, what’s the point of persecuting LGBTQ people? It does nothing to improve society.
LikeLiked by 3 people
April 24, 2023 at 1:41 pm
Response to #3
Derek, while I agree that the word “undermine” may not have been the best word to use. It certainly is not the WRONG word to use, if Jason was using it in the sense:“To weaken by wearing away a base or foundation”. I would have preferred to use a stronger word like “destroy” or “totally refute”. But Jason is kinder than I am.
You said:
“One’s biological sex can be in conflict with one’s psychological sex for various reasons, including the fact that humans are complex systems and sometimes psychological wiring gets crossed.”
I am curious as to how you determine someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. What fail-safe method is or can be used to “prove” that someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. And how do you differentiate between “psychological wiring crossed” and spiritual rebellion, manipulation, opportunism, copycat-ism, or any number of other causes behind people’s claims to be “in the wrong body”? Including just wanting to be a part of a group that is getting attention.
You said:
“But even given that, so what if feelings are more subjective than physical characteristics? Are a person’s parental feelings for an adopted child any less valid just because the child isn’t biologically theirs? Or when you watch a fictional movie with characters who amuse, scare, attract or anger you, are your feelings any less genuine even though you know those characters are just actors following a script? Feelings generally matter more to people than biological facts, after all.”
It seems to me that you are mixing fruit with rocks. And I can’t say that I blame you. How else can you argue against logic and still give the illusion that you are being intelligent and reasonable about your perspective on this topic? You know full well, that Jason is not arguing or even claiming that feelings are not important. Jason is more than capable of defend himself. I would ask you what does people loving their adopted child and being emotionally moved by a movie, have to do with a man “claiming” to think he is a Woman or visa versa, or a 40 year old man claiming to think he is a 5 year old girl? If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this, you will have to make the effort to rational and fare.
You Said:
“Transgender people already have a suicide rate far higher than the general population, and it’s largely because of hatred and bigotry directed at them by religious conservatives (often the same people who say they believe in religious freedom and freedom of choice). Why would you want to contribute to making their lives worse than it already is by attempting to “undermine” these people?”
You have just proven the weakness of your efforts to defend “transgender” people. You acknowledge they have a high suicide rate, but you (like all who cite such statistics to shame those who do not affirm transgender people), you do not address or acknowledge that suicide is an evidence of mental instability. And mental instability is not to be affirmed, defended and celebrated; it is to be intelligently, lovingly and efficiently treated.
LikeLike
April 25, 2023 at 7:53 am
Derekmathias: you said at #13
“Well, not only do your claims directly contradict the actual science on the transgender topic, but it’s positions like yours that have caused transgender people to be marginalized, discriminated against, assaulted and even murdered.”
Sir, for us to have an intelligent, beneficial discussion, you are going to have to stop repeating claims and arguments that have already been responded to and or refuted.
Just saying that what is said “directly contradicts the actual science of the transgender topic”, without saying how is meaningless.
To then (again) claim that my stated position of objection and disagreements with transgenderism “CAUSES” them to be marginalized, discriminated against, assaulted and murdered, without providing tangible proof, and without addressing the fact that people are accountable FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND COMMENTS, not the actions and comments of others, accept in cases when they are literally FORCED to do something. So for you to continue to use that mantra in an effort to shame or silence my view on this is not an intelligent argument.
Your next statement is also a common mantra that is used to place the blame of harm to transgenders on those of us who object to being told we must agree with and celebrate such instability. Their suicide rate is not the consequence of being disagreed with or objected to, it is the result of mental instability/spiritual degradation, resulting from bad medical and or spiritual intervention. And it is clearly evidence of an internal problem, not just their result of depressions due to their incorrectly perceiving how others view them negatively. These accusations may have worked effectively on many who failed or refused think critically about their illogical premise, but it does not work on thinking people who use their minds and not their feelings to understand truth and reality.
I would argue that it is not loving or caring to lie to or about such things, and it is indeed hateful to mislead people on such matters. And that has awful consequences. Not the least of which, is unnecessarily dividing people.
Your next claim is yet another sad misconception, and poor effort to shame us into backing away from speaking the truth about transgenders.
Christianity is not suffering any losses; you must first define what you mean by “Christianity”. You seem to think that Christian organizations / denominations define what Christianity is. They do not. They claim to represent Christianity, but many only represent aspects of Christianity. People joining and leaving local churches and organizations has nothing to do with the actual size of the Christian population.
Many Churches (people) claiming to represent “Christianity”, have always been at odds with what the Bible defines as Christian. So your point is moot.
And for the record, you should also know that your perception of what Biblical love is, is incorrect. Biblical “love” is not making people feel good about their lies, false perceptions and desires, or convictions about themselves and others.
It is apparent to me that you lack of knowledge about Biblical Christianity, has you thinking we are on the wrong side of this issues.
Biblical Christians do indeed love and care about and for people who claim to be “transgender”. Agreeing with their mental/spiritual distortions is not a requirement to be a loving biblical Christian.
LikeLike
April 25, 2023 at 8:19 am
Dingbat writes:
Actually, I seldom think about you, unless you post remarks directed at me. But I understand your need for attention.
I’ve used third-person speech with you before, which you have typically forgotten. I use it to illustrate the futility of trying to reason with you. You’re a transparent ideologue who isn’t at all interested in facts. You have an agenda you’re trying to peddle, which is why you frequent conservative blogs. You hope to persuade unstable Christians to doubt their beliefs.
And the more you talk, the more evidence you provide for your dishonesty. I didn’t “switch” anything. I clearly stated that you are both a liar and unable to understand simple argumentative points.
Actually, you’re hoping that nobody will look at the very clear evidence why it’s a waste of time to debate you. I can and have backed up my claims. As you just acknowledged, the debates in question (at least two of them) are very long, which disproves your fatuous contention that I was unwilling to engage you in debate. Those debates prove your ineptness when it comes to logic, your mendacity with respect to what you’ve read and what people believe, and your faulty memory in arguing against the points you previously defended.
And with respect to missing the point, others have noticed it as well. As I’ve reminded you, Josh also agreed that you clearly misread Schmid’s article on quantum physics (others who have not posted agree). As I noted above, an honest person, regardless his personal disdain for another, will acknowledge the clear difference between being unable and being unwilling to argue further based on previous conduct. Not surprisingly, Derek hangs himself again with his next comment:
In other words, he claims to be so frustrated with my style, he’s not willing to engage me further–EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!! There is no point trying to engage Derek the Dingbat when he’s proved time and again, including here, why it’s a waste of time to engage with him.
Derek, you’re a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
And for those who prefer not-so-long arguments, you may check out Bye Bye Roe. It is only 15 posts long, but Derek’s dishonesty is on display throughout.
LikeLike
May 7, 2023 at 4:28 am
“I am curious as to how you determine someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. What fail-safe method is or can be used to “prove” that someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”.”
That is a question for a psychologist who specializes in the topic. But the fact remains that a small percentage of people are born with non-standard sexual preferences and non-standard sexual identification. It’s just a fact of the human condition, and has been throughout history.
“And how do you differentiate between “psychological wiring crossed” and spiritual rebellion, manipulation, opportunism, copycat-ism, or any number of other causes behind people’s claims to be “in the wrong body”? Including just wanting to be a part of a group that is getting attention.”
That is exactly why such assessments by psychologists whose expertise is in the subject take such time to evaluate. They do their best to figure out whether an individual’s transgender inclinations are temporary or permanent, what his or her specific needs are, and so on, all based on the best science available. What more could you want?
But anyone who has actually gotten to know members of the LGBTQ community knows that these are sincerely held conditions (at least in the vast majority of cases). And your suspicions about their validity doesn’t help them at all. You might as well ask how are you differentiate between a heterosexual who doesn’t have his “psychological wiring crossed” and someone who is born gay but is faking it to not be ostracized by his religious community. Neither situation is helped by cruelty and legislation against these people.
(As for “spiritual rebellion,” I don’t even know what that means. “Spiritual” is a word that so many people define differently that it has essentially lost all meaning.)
“I would ask you what does people loving their adopted child and being emotionally moved by a movie, have to do with a man “claiming” to think he is a Woman or visa versa, or a 40 year old man claiming to think he is a 5 year old girl? If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this, you will have to make the effort to rational and fare.”
Because Jason was the one implying that dishonest men just “claim” to be women so they can do creepy things like go into women’s bathrooms, and then associating those men with actual transgender people to justify dismissing the needs, concerns and rights of transgenders.
It’s no different than pointing out that so many Christian clergy sexually assault children, thus we should paint all Christians as pedophiles, pass legislation banning clergy from interacting with children in any way, and shun clergy from society. How can you know whether a priest or pastor is just pretending to have children’s best interests at heart, or whether he just wants to molest them? You see how it goes? People who live in glass houses…
“You have just proven the weakness of your efforts to defend “transgender” people. You acknowledge they have a high suicide rate, but you (like all who cite such statistics to shame those who do not affirm transgender people), you do not address or acknowledge that suicide is an evidence of mental instability. And mental instability is not to be affirmed, defended and celebrated; it is to be intelligently, lovingly and efficiently treated.”
Sure, suicide can be evidence of mental instability, which is why mental instability is one of the factors psychological experts evaluate. But the evidence indicates that suicidal tendencies are FAR lower among transgender youth who are accepted by their communities. It’s the cruelty, abuse and rejection of LGBTQ people that increases suicide risk most dramatically (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/). In short, your automatic association of transgender with mental instability is one of the main causes of suicide risk.
LikeLike
May 7, 2023 at 5:29 am
“Sir, for us to have an intelligent, beneficial discussion, you are going to have to stop repeating claims and arguments that have already been responded to and or refuted.”
Refuted? Transgender people are 2.5x more likely to be beaten and murdered than cisgender people (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-community-murder-rates-everytown-for-gun-safety-report/). And this is certainoy exacerbated by anti-transgender rhetoric in the religious conservative community (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/report-says-at-least-32-transgender-people-were-killed-in-the-u-s-in-2022). When legislators bypass bills and pastors preach sermons that are deliberately intended to marginalize, demonize and warn against transgender people, and then assaults upon transgender people increase, it would be foolish to pretend that the association doesn’t exist and thus shouldn’t be taken seriously. So no, it’s not refuted, not by a long shot.
“Christianity is not suffering any losses”
On the contrary, as I said: “According to a recent Pew poll, between 2009 and 2019 Christianity lost 11 million members in the US alone, dropping from 77% of the adult population to just 65% (since then it’s dropped to 64%). That’s well over ONE MILLION people per year who have left Christianity in the US alone. This is why thousands of churches are closing every year. It’s also why, over the same time period, the religiously unaffiliated have increased by almost THREE MILLION per year, now making them the largest religious category (just above evangelicals and Catholics).” Here read the evidence for yourself: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
“Many Churches (people) claiming to represent “Christianity”, have always been at odds with what the Bible defines as Christian.”
That argument won’t work because you’re resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you’re not familiar, it’s a defense of an assertion by disallowing—by definition—all evidence that contradicts the assertion, and thus is a logical fallacy. The reality is that Christians have been deconverting in droves ever since the rise of the Internet. While correlation is not necessarily causation, increased access to unrestricted information is associated with reduced religiosity.
“Biblical “love” is not making people feel good about their lies, false perceptions and desires, or convictions about themselves and others.”
No, it’s about using one’s own particular religious interpretation of scripture to justify treating people who are different from you with cruelty and calling it “love.”
Furthermore, there is no single “biblical love.” There are literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations in the world, and all of them vehemently disagree with other denominations on all manner of scripture and doctrine. Some think “biblical love” is to be kind to people no matter what, while others think it means beating up gays and delighting in their suffering. ALL of them can point to places in the Bible to justify their positions, despite contradicting one another.
“It is apparent to me that you lack of knowledge about Biblical Christianity, has you thinking we are on the wrong side of this issues.”
On the contrary. Not only have I read multiple versions of the Bible from cover to cover, but I’ve read countless multiple perspectives on doctrine and history, and I’ve even consulted with two biblical scholars for their perspectives. While I nevertheless do not consider myself a biblical expert by any means (my expertise is primarily in evolution science), I do know that the vast majority of Christians have never even read the entire Bible once, and very few of those who have ever think through the inevitable consequences of the claims made in scripture. When presented with evidence of these consequences, they tend to become like the regulars on this forum Paul and Scalia—angry, vindictive, and resorting to name-calling rather than reasoned argument. Unfortunately, that’s what happens when evidence is less important than religious doctrine.
LikeLike
May 7, 2023 at 8:42 pm
My Reply to your #17 comment derekmathias
I asked:
“I am curious as to how you determine someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”. What fail-safe method is or can be used to “prove” that someone’s “psychological wiring is crossed”.”
You replied:
“That is a question for a psychologist who specializes in the topic. But the fact remains that a small percentage of people are born with non-standard sexual preferences and non-standard sexual identification. It’s just a fact of the human condition, and has been throughout history.”
So you assume that Transgenderism is a “psychological wiring cross” and trust that psychologist are correct when they say that is the cause. But you have no way of knowing if they are correct or not, do you?
Also, It is interesting how you neglected to even acknowledge the fact that very many psychologists are guilty of telling these young children that they are Homosexuals, and encouraging them to pursue that life as something good and normal, and that there is a lot of money being made by them creating life-long patients who need their medications and treatments for their “transitioning”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykwT2_HPNLY
You seem to be determined to pretend that their condition is “natural”, and the result of “how they were born”, when there is no truth to that, and no way to prove it.
You said:
“But anyone who has actually gotten to know members of the LGBTQ community knows that these are sincerely held conditions (at least in the vast majority of cases).”
Anyone? Well that is strange, since I have gotten to know them, many, and in-fact, my best friend growing up was a homosexual. I also had many dinners at my homosexual friends homes. We had many deep talks and debates over dinner. I lost most of them to aids. But what I was never told by them back then, was that they were born that way, or that they were men in women’s bodies, or women in men’s bodies. All of them were clear that they chose their sexual preferences as a result of life experiences and situations. The born that way lie and the mass psychosis toward the “I’m in the wrong body” syndrome, seems to be strategies concocted by intellectual homosexuals that has cough on and has helps legitimize their plight, and gain them political and social/cultural acceptance and influence.
You said:
“And your suspicions about their validity doesn’t help them at all.”
My suspicions? You are not ignorant, you know full well what is going on among the impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists.
And No, I don’t have to ask about differentiating between a straight and a closet homosexual, that is your usual effort to deflect from the real issue. Just how well does someone who really thinks they are homosexual, “fake” not being homosexual? And I am not an advocate for the religious community’s ostracization of those who identify as homosexual. I notice that you are not actually dealing with the real issue, but you are just focusing on the hardships of the homosexuals and how they are treated. You seem to think that they have no accountability for anything they do or think, or claim to think. And that everyone must cater to their sexual proclivities and ideas about gender.
You said:
“Neither situation is helped by cruelty and legislation against these people.”
Cruelty, and legislation against these people?
What have I suggested here that constitutes “Cruelty” to these people?
And what legislation are you referring to that I have advocated against them? Is it that difficult for you to stay focused on what you and I are discussing?
When I asked you:
“I would ask you what does people loving their adopted child and being emotionally moved by a movie, have to do with a man “claiming” to think he is a Woman or visa versa, or a 40 year old man claiming to think he is a 5 year old girl? If we are going to have an intelligent conversation about this, you will have to make the effort to rational and fare.”
You said it was because Jason was the one implying that dishonest men just “claim” to be women so they can do creepy things like go into women’s bathrooms, and then associating those men with actual transgender people to justify dismissing the needs, concerns and rights of trans genders.
I have to point out that you did not actually answer my question, instead, you once again deflected away from my question and injected Jason.
But since you did, tell me, where in this thread did Jason make the implication that dishonest men claim to be women to do creepy things? And if he has not here, why are you injecting it here, and to me? When I did not imply it? You seem to be straining to create dialog to inject your defense of homosexuals rather than have an intelligent dialog about which of our arguments on the subject is more reasonable and correct.
Christians don’t sexually assault children, and so it would not be rational to “paint all Christians as pedophiles”. And since you can’t know for sure who is or is not a real Christian, you should not trust anyone alone with children that are not theirs. That you do not know well enough to KNOW you can trust them.
This is not a glass house matter. But it is sad that you cross this up so badly just to give the impression that you are on the high road and we are not.
You said:
“But the evidence indicates that suicidal tendencies are FAR lower among transgender youth who are accepted by their communities. It’s the cruelty, abuse and rejection of LGBTQ people that increases suicide risk most dramatically (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/). In short, your automatic association of transgender with mental instability is one of the main causes of suicide risk.”
The evidence? You do know that research and statistics are often fabricated or fudged to give a desired conclusion, don’t you? With all the money in homosexuality, such research and reports are not hard to fabricate of find. And there are professionals in the same field that make opposite claims as you should know. I prefer to believe what is seen in countries that support defend and celebrate homosexuality. There the suicide rates are still high. But that kind of statistic would not be of interest to you would it?
LikeLike
May 8, 2023 at 6:26 pm
This is my reply to your #18 post derekmathias
Starting with your paragraph:
“…Transgender people are 2.5x more likely to be beaten and murdered than cisgender people…”
I have to take issue with your use of “anti-transgender rhetoric” “marginalize” “Demonize”, to describe my or other biblical Christian’s objections to transgenterism.
And your claim that somehow our objections to and rejection of homosexuality/”transgenderism” is the cause of assaults on them increasing, is also unfair and even suspect. You seem to be unwilling to consider the obligation of and accountability of the individuals doing the physical harm. Why?
As for the links you provided to prove the abuse, what are the details of the listed reports you have posted and trust so religiously? How do you know what the actual cause of the beating and murder was? Because a so called transgender person was beaten or killed, does not mandate a hate crime against people who identify as trans. Are you claiming that all or even most people identifying as trans are perfect, wonderful people who do no wrong, or that everyone who gets into a fight with such people or kill them, ONLY do so because they hate people who identify as trasns? This is what you are suggesting. Are you not aware that many trans people are unstable and often provoke conflict due to that instability? Are you not aware that many trans have and do commit violent acts against EACHOTHER and against no trans people, and as a result receive retaliation? Or is none of this of any importance to you. Only making “Trans” people victims of injustice?
You said:
“On the contrary, as I said: “According to a recent Pew poll, between 2009 and 2019 Christianity lost 11 million members in the US alone, dropping from 77% of the adult population to just 65% (since then it’s dropped to 64%).”
Have you contacted Pew to ask them how they define “Christian”? Or is that unimportant as long as their use of the term seem to indicate that anyone one who claims to be Christian, is Christian. What criteria did they use to determine the “Christian” status? My point was and is that Religious people who “Claim” to be Christian, and people who are indeed Biblical Christians are not necessarily the same. Since you are not interested in such actualities, accept when it comes to homosexuality and other identities that are not Christian, you seem unwilling to even entertain the possibility of my argument. (As per you effort to accuse me of the same below).
To my statement:
“Many Churches (people) claiming to represent “Christianity”, have always been at odds with what the Bible defines as Christian.”
You instantly apply a fallacy that you accuse me of resorting to.
“… you’re resorting to the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you’re not familiar, it’s a defense of an assertion by disallowing—by definition—all evidence that contradicts the assertion, and thus is a logical fallacy.”
Can you define what you are referring to when you use the word “Christian”. You must be able to correctly do so, since you did not bother to ask me to define it, yet you assume that I resorted to a fallacy by my effort to point out to you that Claiming to be a Christian or being assumed to be a Christian, does not make one a Christian. And thus evil done by people who claim to be Christians, does not make that evil a Christian act. How is that a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Why not be logical since you want to use fallacies. Or is it that logic does not help your efforts to protect the “trans” group?
Since there is no way for you to actually know who really was a Christian before they “unconverted”, your gloating about the “decline” of Christianity is moot.
When I said:
“Biblical “love” is not making people feel good about their lies, false perceptions and desires, or convictions about themselves and others.”
You replied:
“No, it’s about using one’s own particular religious interpretation of scripture to justify treating people who are different from you with cruelty and calling it “love.”
Please Define what you mean by “treating people with cruelty”. Be clear and specific so we can deal with it. What it the “one’s own particular religious interpretation of scripture” that you are referring to?”
You are clearly confused about What constitutes a Christian. Christian Denominations do not determine who is and is not a Christian, nor do their disagreements on issues negate Biblical Love.
You said:
“…. Some think “biblical love” is to be kind to people no matter what, while others think it means beating up gays and delighting in their suffering. ALL of them can point to places in the Bible to justify their positions, despite contradicting one another.”
The Bible is clearly not your strong point, are you suggesting that those Christians who believe that biblical love is being kind to people no matter what, means they can’t stand against ungodliness, wickedness, perversion and be kind at the same time? You see, you are not relying on true Biblical Christian content, but perhaps on what you are reading from anti-Christian sources, and bad so-called Christian sources. And as for any professing Christian who thinks “beating up gays and delighting in their suffering” is biblical love, that is a clear evidence that they are not a Biblical Christian. Where in the Bible is such justified?
If you have indeed read as much as you say you have, and you have consulted two biblical scholars (who may I ask), why is it that you do not seem to be aware what a Biblical Christian is? Why do you assume that groups referred to as Christian Denominations are biblical Christians? And why are you communicating as if you are not aware of What a biblical Christian is?
You said:
“I do know that the vast majority of Christians have never even read the entire Bible once, and very few of those who have ever think through the inevitable consequences of the claims made in scripture.”
Finally we can agree on something!!!!
And I trust that you can admit that I have not resorted to anger, vindictiveness or name calling.
But I do have a problem with much of what you call “presenting evidence”. You have posted many links to sources that you think prove your arguments, but I have not found them to be evidence. And since we can’t determine the credibility of such links, it would be better to try to state the particular aspect of the source that we use that constitutes evidence, rather than just site the source and force each other to have to watch or read volumes. I save your sources in my files and I do find them helpful in understanding why you hold some of your views. But in this kind of setting, a more direct and precise evidence would be far more helpful. Agreed?
LikeLike
May 9, 2023 at 2:05 pm
Derek the Dingbat writes:
Derek’s been shown his backside more than once, as my links to our previous debates clearly show. When he claims to know things he clearly does not know, when he refuses to admit basic, elementary errors, when he attacks the very position he’s defended, and when he tells deliberate lies to evade admitting error, he earns the disdain of every decent person who reads this and other blogs.
Derek doesn’t know how to put together a good argument (see the above links). He deflects, reframes, evades and lies his head off when confronted with clear refutations of his delusions. Any person who refuses to argue in good faith merits ridicule and censure.
LikeLike
May 10, 2023 at 8:17 am
@Preacherteacher, you write:
Good question, but let’s concede the point for sake of argument. The number of Americans with this alleged condition is extremely small. However, there’s a greater number of men who’ve been trying to get into women’s private spaces ever since they’ve been created. They’ve dressed like women, tried to install hidden cameras, put up two-way mirrors, drilled holes into walls, and crawled into duct spaces just to get their jollies. Since the Left insists that a man is a woman on his claim alone, they’ve opened the door to every Tom, Dick and Harry to do openly what they previously had to do surreptitiously.
The Left, which would have us believe without question their doctors who allege gender wiring crosses, oppose regulations requiring a medical diagnosis from those same doctors before allowing claimants into women’s spaces. In other words, regardless what doctors say, let’s allow every man who claims to be a woman automatic access to locker rooms, showers and restrooms. They are thus deliberately displacing the legitimate privacy concerns of women (and men) with their political agenda.
When you have legitimate rights concerns which overlap, the answer is not to trash one in favor of the other. The answer is to make an accommodation, if possible. As my post above (#4) demonstrates, biological policy adjustments on one’s mere claim is rationally indefensible. If there really are women trapped in men’s bodies, why can’t there be children trapped in adults’ bodies or old people trapped in young persons’ bodies? What about black people trapped in white people’s bodies? If you’re an adult and want to play dress-up or engage in the fantasy that you’re really a peacock or a Tesla, that’s your business, so long as you’re not hurting anybody else or encroaching on their rights, including free speech rights. If you have a certifiable medical condition, then you need treatment. I’m all for the public funding of treatment for those grappling with mental illness. It doesn’t help anybody who is mentally ill to say that his or her condition is normal and should be celebrated. It is NOT compassionate to feed a person’s delusion or mental illness. And it is NOT compassionate to trash the privacy concerns of many to further the delusions of the few.
LikeLike
May 10, 2023 at 11:28 am
You point is clearly correct, and it is the major issue with their efforts to change reality.
You are right on target. And it all is intentional, there is clearly something much bigger offing on here than trans rights. There are forces at work that seek to disrupt the natural for the abstract, bazaar and deprived, and who seek to, and have created an industry that makes them billions in the process, off of human cash-cows.
LikeLiked by 1 person
May 15, 2023 at 10:17 am
Your response is longer than I have time to do full justice, but the most important problem I see with your position comes up again and again in your post, and I’ll certainly address that:
“It is interesting how you neglected to even acknowledge the fact that very many psychologists are guilty of telling these young children that they are Homosexuals, and encouraging them to pursue that life as something good and normal, and that there is a lot of money being made by them creating life-long patients who need their medications and treatments for their “transitioning”.”
What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson. You say their work is untrustworthy and that we can’t know if what they say is true…and then to support your claim you give me a video of a right-wing interview with a conspiracy theorist who claims to be an “investigative journalist” but who is a hairdresser with a blog. Seriously? You’re quick to dismiss my links to Pew Research and science journals over…that?
That makes about as much sense as accepting creationist claims of a 6,000 y.o. universe or a flat-earth over the evidence from evolutionary science and cosmology. Homosexuality and transgenderism have existed longer than humans have existed. We even see it today in literally hundreds of mammal, bird and reptile species (I would provide you with links, but it seems there’s a hold put on posts for administrator moderation if one provides more than one or two links—which is why there was a delay in my last post appearing—but you should be able to find the evidence for yourself by simply doing a search for “homosexuality in the animal kingdom”). We also have logical evolutionary reasons for why homosexuality occurs in nature; it’s not a bug, it’s a feature that ultimately increases reproductive success of a species. And it explains why conversion therapy is a failure.
You have something of a cartoonish notion of what a scientist is and how science works, as if it’s about coming up with unsupported ideas and defending them like a religious belief, and doing so in order to make money. Your claim that psychologists make a lot of money by encouraging transgenderism reflects this. Not only is it extremely cynical, but you’re ignoring the fact that the main reason people go into the sciences is out of an interest in understanding phenomena, not to make money—scientists rarely get rich (at least not without groundbreaking discoveries or overturning theories). Your apparent notion of how a scientist thinks would rapidly result in the end of his or her scientific career.
I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money, but their licenses are conditional, legally constrained by required ethical and scientific standards (something that bloggers, pastors and other laypeople don’t have). More relevantly to your claim, though, is that there are plenty of areas to specialize in psychology that are far safer and more lucrative than transgenderism, and there is no shortage of patients. These facts don’t fit your narrative.
You seem to have bought into the notion of the greedy practitioner as the standard, rather than the rare exception. If you’re like most Christian conservatives I’ve encountered, it’s because such a picture fits your religious agenda, rather than out of any fidelity to the truth. Why else would you use a hairdresser-with a-blog interview as your supportive evidence, rather than what the scientific evidence that virtually the entire relevant scientific community has discovered over decades of clinical research?
“You seem to be determined to pretend that their condition is “natural”, and the result of “how they were born”, when there is no truth to that, and no way to prove it.”
That’s an assertion that, again, fails to match the evidence. In fact, there has been a great amount of research done on the topic (and there is much more to come), which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts transgenderism as a valid orientation. To say otherwise smacks of a conspiracy theory. Not only can hundreds of millions of LGBTQ worldwide affirm their gender identification, but as research has shown, “the neural wiring in a transgender person’s brain looks more similar to their gender of identity rather than their gender of assignment at birth” (google “scientific evidence for transgenderism” to see the article), and only about 1% of those who actually undergo gender reassignment regret their decision (google “how many regret gender reassignment surgery”). None of these facts fit your narrative, so you will accept none of them, no matter how much good research is behind them.
“You are not ignorant, you know full well what is going on among the impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists.”
I’ll bet you have no credible evidence to support this. if there were any actual evidence to support grooming by psychologists, there would be a massive uproar in the psychology science throughout the world. Again, you are veering into hard conspiracy theory territory.
“Christians don’t sexually assault children”
They most certainly do. New cases turn up all the time! Google “Child Sex Abusers in Protestant Christian Churches: An Offender Typology” and read the top article by criminologists to find thousands of examples. It’s a pandemic among Christian churches, with the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Mormons, and JWs being among the most well-known.
“The evidence? You do know that research and statistics are often fabricated or fudged to give a desired conclusion, don’t you?”
Again you demonstrate you don’t understand how science works. Sure, individual scientists can and do make mistakes, and some even fabricate data, but that is FAR more rare in science than in any other human institution specifically because of the falsifiability and reproducibility requirements of the scientific method. This is why bad data and hoaxes are eventually uncovered by other scientists attempting to reproduce the original claim. Unlike religion or any other area of knowledge claims, scientific explanations are ALWAYS subject to revision by credible contradicting evidence, which is why it’s the hardest arena in which to promulgate falsehoods. The reason you know about cases of bad data is because SCIENTISTS have uncovered it—yes, those same scientists whose findings you reject.
“Have you contacted Pew to ask them how they define “Christian”? Or is that unimportant as long as their use of the term seem to indicate that anyone one who claims to be Christian, is Christian.”
A Christian is someone who believes he is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Anything else is interpretation adopted by a specific denomination. I’ve attended at least a dozen different Christian churches (plus synagogues and temples throughout the world) in my life, and every single one believes they are “biblical Christians,” every single one emphasizes and de-emphasizes certain biblical claims, and every single one is certain THEIR interpretation is the only “right” one.
For instance, Protestants believe that salvation comes from faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:8-13), whereas Catholics say salvation requires both faith and works (James 2:24, 1 Corinthians 13:2, Matthew 25:31-46) and that you can lose your salvation (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 2 Corinthians 13:5, John 15:1-11). And even within such major divisions there are many subdivisions, such as Lutherans teaching that anyone can choose to accept salvation, while Calvinists teach that only God chooses whom to save. These are all dramatically different interpretations of the SAME BOOK. The scholars of ALL those sects study the Bible in depth…yet arrive at drastically different conclusions. And it’s all due to differences in interpretation. The Bible doesn’t come with a key or guide to determine what should be interpreted literally vs. metaphorically…and therein lies the confusion (so much for God not being the author of confusion…).
But none of that matters, does it, because I’m sure YOU figured out the “one true” Christian interpretation, and all the other thousands of denominations that disagree with you are wrong…right? 😉
“And thus evil done by people who claim to be Christians, does not make that evil a Christian act. How is that a No True Scotsman fallacy.”
First, the structure of a No True Scotsman fallacy is where someone makes a claim (like “No Christians commit evil acts”), then someone else points out examples that contradict that claim (like “Here are multiple documented convictions of Christians committing evil acts”), so the perpetrator of the fallacy excludes those who are the exception to the claim (“No TRUE Christians commit evil acts”). Look up the definition for yourself.
Keep in mind that Christians who commit evil believe that they are NOT committing evil, because “BY DEFINITION Christians cannot commit evil” (No True Scotsman). That’s how they justify beating, murdering and discriminating against LGBTQ people—all in the name of “love,” of course. Of course, in your mind I’ll bet all the Christian denominations that embrace the LGBTQ community are perpetrating evil, just as they accuse you of doing, right?
“Christian before they “unconverted”, your gloating about the “decline” of Christianity is moot.”
Oh, but you wouldn’t be singing that tune if Christianity were growing, now would you? 😉 And most of my friends and family are ex-Christians, and they would vehemently object to your dismissal of their beliefs. One of my friends believed so strongly that he entered the seminary before losing his belief, while another was a pastor for 30 YEARS before realizing he was an atheist. In both cases it was by in-depth study of the Bible that they lost their belief, when they realized that early Christian history and beliefs were nothing like what they had been taught in church. Thus the truism:
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” — Isaac Asimov
“A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the surest path to atheism.” — Donald Morgan
Incidentally, reading the Bible cover-to-cover and thinking about the inevitable consequences of God’s behavior made me an atheist as well.
Okay, I’ve already devoted way too much time to this thread. But I would urge you to put yourself in the shoes of a trans person and try to understand their situation. Imagine people wanted to legislate away your rights to be a Christian, using the sexual assault scandals in the various Christian sects as reason to deny you the right to read the Bible or go to church. Imagine everyone denied you the right to even be a Christian, and you had to fear for your safety from those non-Christians. Do you think that would be just or fair? Would you want to live in such a community?
You’d think that a religion with a persecution complex would show compassion to others who are persecuted…but instead you do the same thing to others. Well, when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like persecution.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 11:55 am
derekmathias you said:
“What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson. You say their work is untrustworthy and that we can’t know if what they say is true…and then to support your claim you give me a video of a right-wing interview with a conspiracy theorist who claims to be an “investigative journalist” but who is a hairdresser with a blog. Seriously? You’re quick to dismiss my links to Pew Research and science journals over…that?”
Ok, you see, this is what Scalia and others have complained about you, you are not here to have an intelligent dialogue, you are here to promote your leftists ideas on a conservative platform, so you don’t even bother to give intelligent refutations, just bold claims and religious confidence in psychologists and scientists.
The way you ignored the report given by Jennifer Bilek, and her investigative journalist status and focused on trivializing her credibility based on something else she does, as if that discredits her research and the references she provided, is typical of your tactics. You play a slick game of “scientist know best and they are above reproach or question when it comes to what they claim or having arterial motives that are a betrayal of what they claim to want or are trying to do”. Your denial of the massive corruption in science, psychology and medical industry for that matter, is horrifying and frustrating to say the least.
You have responded in a classical manner here that demonstrates your state and why. You have helped me to understand you mind.
I am going to reply to your last post fully, not because I think it will help you, but so that others can see how wrong your twisting of things is. And then I would ask that you not communicate with me on this any longer. Instead, I would rather challenge you to a public debate on this and on your “Evolution” claims. Please show us how confident you are in your worldview and slick comments you have been making here and however many other threads you have posted on.
Lets discuss this in real time on Zoom and see how easy it is for you to dodge, deflect, misinterpret, reinterpret, project, falsely accuse and redirect. Now I am going to go out on a limb and say that you will decline, because you know you would not be able to play the game that you play in printed dialogues. I can far more quickly check you when you say things that are not true or intentionally misleading or off topic of the question. You will have no doubt, what you think is a legitimate excuse not to accept. But there it is. Let’s do this. We will set it up so that you will have time to talk with no interruption and I will have time to reply with no interruption. Polite professional dialogue.
Since I know you are not interested in intelligent conversation that leaded to the best answer or what is closest to the truth, at least you will be able to show us why you are right and we are wrong.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 12:47 pm
I see you’ve written me a couple posts, Scalia. I thought I made it clear to you that I’m not reading your comments on this thread anymore. You lost your relevance when your responses degenerated to childish name-calling. Sorry, I’m just not interested in that. Please try to do better next time.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 2:53 pm
Dingbat writes,
I really couldn’t care less if you read my posts or not. I will, however, reply when you falsely accuse me with your diarrhea of the mouth. And I wish you had gotten that conviction long ago when I told you that your dishonesty merited the disdain of every decent person commenting on this blog. Since you have no honor, nobody in their right mind would want to “debate” you because you’re not interested in the truth.
If you had been honest, you would have long ago stated as I multiple times suggested you do and agree that the record does indeed speak for itself and that you are content to let others be the judge of the matter. And since you’re now obsessed with being left alone, why couldn’t you honor that when I repeatedly told you to do likewise?
Please try to do better next time. At least try to be honest.
Derek is a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 3:20 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write:<You play a slick game of “scientist know best and they are above reproach or question when it comes to what they claim or having arterial motives that are a betrayal of what they claim to want or are trying to do”.And yet, Derek, who worships at the altars of these scientists and doctors, will oppose any requirement that a male claiming to be a female obtain a certified diagnosis from those same doctors before being allowed into areas reserved for women. After all, one’s fealty to “science” can only go so far. Facts only matter if they further Leftist propaganda. Facts are ignored otherwise.
With respect to debating Derek, his YouTube channel, which has quite a few videos, is conspicuously missing any debates with recognized Christian apologists. He falsely claimed on these boards that he indeed interacted with a couple of apologists, but the ones he spoke to are NOT recognized apologists at all. If the truth is what he is after, it would be easy for him to have an online debate with them. He doesn’t, of course, because he’d get peeled like an orange. His arguments would be at least as awful as they are here, and they’d humiliate him for his abject ignorance of some basic Christian ideas.
On the other hand, Derek’s mendacity notwithstanding, I understand that evolutionary biology is his specialty, so I would venture to guess that he wouldn’t hesitate to debate you on the matter if he has the time. To me, evolution is a red herring because the Five Ways can assume it arguendo and not affect the arguments in any measure. We can even assume an eternal universe without changing our arguments. But if you venture into the arena of biology, you’d better be on the level of a Stephen Meyer or William Craig. If you’re not up up-to-date with the latest scientific data, you’ll get eaten alive. I say that not to insult. You may yourself be a biologist, but if you’re not, I have to give credit where credit is due and say that Derek is very capable in that arena. He’s just a lousy philosopher, and his ineptness in things philosophical is amplified by his dishonesty. When he runs out of argumentative ammunition, which is rather quickly, he reflexively lies. He makes jaw-droppingly obvious errors and will refuse to admit them when they are pointed out. Philosophical debate is his Achilles’ heel, but talking straight biology isn’t. Just my two cents. 🙂
LikeLike
May 15, 2023 at 3:32 pm
My apologies. The first paragraph of Post 28 is not formatted correctly. I guess I was moving too quickly. Here it is in proper format:
@Preacherteacher, you write:
And yet, Derek, who worships at the altars of these scientists and doctors, will oppose any requirement that a male claiming to be a female obtain a certified diagnosis from those same doctors before being allowed into areas reserved for women. After all, one’s fealty to “science” can only go so far. Facts only matter if they further Leftist propaganda. Facts are ignored otherwise.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:15 pm
Thanks for the head’s up and concern Scalia. I appreciate you looking out for me. That Being said, i assure you that Biologist or not, Derek would be no problem for me in a debate. I have dealt with greater minds then him on the topic of Evolution and they did not do well. You are of course correct about Derek, that is why I prefer to make him defend his rhetoric in a formal discussion so it can be seen how he deals with corrections that he can’t create distractions to side step.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:35 pm
derekmathias This is my reply to your post 24#
I will have to divide it into three or so posts.
PT.1 I said:
“It is interesting how you neglected to even acknowledge the fact that very many psychologists are guilty of telling these young children that they are Homosexuals, and encouraging them to pursue that life as something good and normal, and that there is a lot of money being made by them creating life-long patients who need their medications and treatments for their “transitioning”.”
You replied:
“What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson.”
No, I am not dismissing “findings” and “Conclusions” of “experts”, I am questioning you faith in their findings and conclusions. You know that appealing to authority can also be viewed as a fallacy don’t you? My argument was on what your criteria was for determining how reliable their findings and conclusions are. You know that but you chose to shift the focus, why?
You said:
“You say their work is untrustworthy and that we can’t know if what they say is true…and then to support your claim you give me a video of a right-wing interview with a conspiracy theorist who claims to be an “investigative journalist” but who is a hairdresser with a blog. Seriously? You’re quick to dismiss my links to Pew Research and science journals over…that?”
You have just misrepresented me. Again. My post of the link to the Jennifer Bilek interview was not given to prove what they say is not true, but to prove that there is an industry making billions off of the trans community. You know this, but you intentionally skew what I stated to make your point seem more reasonable. Not only was the interview not “right wing”, and Jennifer is not a “rightwinger”, but you totally ignored her status as an investigator, why? You think a hairdresser can’t be an intelligent investigator? On what bases?
And please tell me where I “dismissed” you pew link? What I dismissed is your idea that anyone referred to as a “Christian” is indeed a Christian. You still don’t seem to get that. Why?
You said:
“That makes about as much sense as accepting creation claims of a 6,000 y.o. universe or a flat-earth over the evidence from evolutionary science and cosmology.”
We can debate your faith in Darwinian evolution and old universe idea at another time. What I said is nothing like either, so again, you intentionally try to trivialize my argument. But you did not refute it.
You said:
‘Homosexuality and transgenderism have existed longer than humans have existed. We even see it today in literally hundreds of mammal, bird and reptile species (I would provide you with links, but it seems there’s a hold put on posts for administrator moderation if one provides more than one or two links—which is why there was a delay in my last post appearing—but you should be able to find the evidence for yourself by simply doing a search for “homosexuality in the animal kingdom”). We also have logical evolutionary reasons for why homosexuality occurs in nature; it’s not a bug, it’s a feature that ultimately increases reproductive success of a species. And it explains why conversion therapy is a failure.”
Your religious faith in atheist scientist and liberal left scientists is touching, but looking to a fallen creation for guidance on moral and sexual matters is hardly a rebuttal to my rejection of “transgender”Disjunctions. And it is pathetic and sad that your scientists have to invent what animals are doing with each-other by calling it homosexuality as if animals had the ability to understand the sexuality. But it is indeed a good case for the depravity of homosexuality, Animals have a good excuse, humans do not.
You said:
“You have something of a cartoonish notion of what a scientist is and how science works, as if it’s about coming up with unsupported ideas and defending them like a religious belief, and doing so in order to make money. Your claim that psychologists make a lot of money by encouraging transgenderism reflects this.”
Stated like a true egotist and science zealot. For someone who claims to be well informed about science, and evolution, you seem either unaware of or uninterested in how often scientists promote unsupported ideas and defend them. Or the role that money plays in such behavior. You clearly did not bother to watch the video interview I gave you that you attacked as a hairdresser. But then such details does not fit your disinformation goal now does it?
You continued:
“Not only is it extremely cynical, but you’re ignoring the fact that the main reason people go into the sciences is out of an interest in understanding phenomena, not to make money—scientists rarely get rich (at least not without groundbreaking discoveries or overturning theories). Your apparent notion of how a scientist thinks would rapidly result in the end of his or her scientific career.”
So now you know the main reason why people go into science, and what is that based on? What they claim? And how do you know that their claim is honest? How often do people claim honorable intent when there are really other arterial motives more relevant? Why do you constantly act as if you know things that you don’t really know?
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:37 pm
PT. 2
You said:
“I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money, but their licenses are conditional, legally constrained by required ethical and scientific standards (something that bloggers, pastors and other laypeople don’t have).”
And what conditional, legal and ethical rule prevents a psychiatrist from telling a disturbed child that comes in their office that they are “gay” or “trans”?
What rule stops them from suggesting to children that they may be “gay” or “trans” even when they said nothing about having such issues? Why do you have so much faith in the sciences enforcement of abuse and grooming? Do you have no knowledge of the abuses of science and scientists that have gone on for ages without abatement? Why are you so determined to trivialize corrupt science?
You said:
“More relevantly to your claim, though, is that there are plenty of areas to specialize in psychology that are far safer and more lucrative than transgenderism, and there is no shortage of patients. These facts don’t fit your narrative.”
Really? And how does that refute my argument? I never claimed there were no other lucrative areas. That does not change to fact of the booming trans industry. You know this. So how does your claim go against my “narrative”?
You said:
“You seem to have bought into the notion of the greedy practitioner as the standard, rather than the rare exception.”
Again, how do you know it is rare? Based on what? There are countless examples of doctors prescribing medication that was not needed, performing operations that were unnecessary, C sections are standard birth operations today when they are certainly not necessary most of the time Why? Money. Again, you are defending science and “brought into the notion” that greedy practitioners are not the standard.
Popular drugs have long been given out that were not effective for what they were claimed to help or cure. Why are you being so dishonest?
You said:
“If you’re like most Christian conservatives I’ve encountered, it’s because such a picture fits your religious agenda, rather than out of any fidelity to the truth.”
I assure you that I am not your average Christian conservative.
But what about your religious agenda? Science is your religion because you think it gives you an answer against God. It doesn’t, but you defend it religiously as you have here to the point of being irrational.
My arguments are not to protect or defend any religious agenda. I am trying to address these issues with honesty and accuracy.
You said:
“Why else would you use a hairdresser-with a-blog interview as your supportive evidence, rather than what the scientific evidence that virtually the entire relevant scientific community has discovered over decades of clinical research?”
The better question is, why would you ignore that “hairdresser’s” research that addresses the power and money behind the trans promotion? She did name names and provided good information. Her message clearly does not fit your narrative, and you clearly avoid any real discussion about such madness because it is your kind of people who are the perpetrators. So you prefer personal attacks by calling her a “hairdresser”, as if hairdressers can’t possibly be intelligent researchers. Would you say that if she was a “transgender” person?
You said:
“That’s an assertion that, again, fails to match the evidence. In fact, there has been a great amount of research done on the topic (and there is much more to come), which is why virtually the entire relevant scientific community accepts transgenderism as a valid orientation.”
Again you expose your ego and bias against real science. “Relevant Scientific community”? And how do you define “relevant”? Supporting your perspective? The many who denounce, reject and expose the lies of the “scientists” on your side are not relevant in your thinking. Naturally, because they point out the bias, malpractice and false claims that your side have made. I don’t have to link you to oblivion to defend my point, you know this but would not admit it because you can’t.
By the way, I have not argued against transgenderism being a valid “orientation”. I argue that it is twisted, deprived and should not be allowed to be forced on society as if it was a natural, good and healthy state of mind. That some of the people caught up in it are hurting and mentally disturbed and need to received proper medical help. Others in it are opportunist who use it for the attention, the special rights and privileges it affords them through the efforts of bleeding heart and or opportunistic politicians and special interest groups.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:41 pm
PT.3
You said:
“To say otherwise smacks of a conspiracy theory.
Ah yes, the conspiracy theory accusation, what a poor comeback, not intelligent at all.
And to think that I never questioned “orientation”.
You continued:
“Not only can hundreds of millions of LGBTQ worldwide affirm their gender identification, but as research has shown, “the neural wiring in a transgender person’s brain looks more similar to their gender of identity rather than their gender of assignment at birth” (google “scientific evidence for transgenderism” to see the article), and only about 1% of those who actually undergo gender reassignment regret their decision (google “how many regret gender reassignment surgery”). None of these facts fit your narrative, so you will accept none of them, no matter how much good research is behind them.”
And the “Conspiracy” is refuted by google page statistics? Oh yes, it must be because all those researchers making these claims have no dishonest motive at all. They are angels (pardon me) they are wonderful with pure hearts and no possible arterial motives. I am amazed at how much faith you have in medical scientists and their ethics. You just refuse to admit that such consensus could be motivated by money. Religious indeed. Just look at your reply to my statement:
I said:
“You are not ignorant, you know full well what is going on among the impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists.”
And what was your reply?
I’ll bet you have no credible evidence to support this. if there were any actual evidence to support grooming by psychologists, there would be a massive uproar in the psychology science throughout the world. Again, you are veering into hard conspiracy theory territory.
If that is not a religious response I don’t know what is. How would you define “credible evidence”?
You either really truly and ignorantly believe in the moral purity of the psychology industry, or you are a deceiver who seeks to use the argument from authority to defend lies. Are you such a zealot that you must praise science and the science community, and make them magnanimous in their oversite and motives. If so, I am impressed by your faith. But I suspect you are just intentionally denying what is going on to protect the guilty and promote homosexuality. By the way, I have personally experienced this with my children going to their annual checkups. They come and tell me the line of inappropriate questioning they get from the medial professionals about homosexuality, and I as a good parent, no longer use that medical service. You could find many such stories on line if you wanted to. But ye don’t.
You really don’t seem like you are concerned about being accurate or honest. Note your reply to my next statement: I said:
“Christians don’t sexually assault children”
And you replied:
“They most certainly do. New cases turn up all the time! (you gave a google link) It’s a pandemic among Christian churches, with the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Mormons, and JWs being among the most well-known.”
But you have not yet defined what you mean by “Christian” so how do you know what “Christians” do?
It is impossible for Christians to sexually abuse children. The act itself is evidence that they are not Christians. The fact that you think they can, proves that you are clueless as to what a Christian is. As an avowed atheist, you are demonstrating your ignorance or lack of interest in being accurate when it comes to Christians. Being a member of a church does not make one a Christian. Mormons and WatchTower witness are not Christians. Neither are Catholics who believe and follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic church.
But you clearly don’t care, if bad can be ascribed to Christians, you think it justifies your atheism or at lease supports it. But you are wrong.
To my statement:
“The evidence? You do know that research and statistics are often fabricated or fudged to give a desired conclusion, don’t you?”
You replied:
“Again you demonstrate you don’t understand how science works…”
You then admit they make mistakes and even fabricate data, but you claim it is so rare that it is lower than any other human institution because of falsifiability and reproducibility requirements.
No, my statement says nothing about my not understanding how science works. You do know that “reproducing” is not always necessary for claims to be mainstreamed in science don’t you? If not, then you are not as knowledgeable of science as you think. Your professed omniscience as to there being far less lying going on in science than “any other institution” is interesting. But that is actually also a faith statement. You naturally are not interested in knowing just how deep seated lying is in science, because science is a major part of your religion.
This is why I have challenged you to a public debate on these issues. Why have you not agreed to such a debate? There are a number of reasons that you are apparently not aware of that massive fraud in science occurs and is covered up.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:43 pm
PT.4
You said:
“This is why bad data and hoaxes are eventually uncovered by other scientists attempting to reproduce the original claim. Unlike religion or any other area of knowledge claims, scientific explanations are ALWAYS subject to revision by credible contradicting evidence, which is why it’s the hardest arena in which to promulgate falsehoods. The reason you know about cases of bad data is because SCIENTISTS have uncovered it—yes, those same scientists whose findings you reject.”
No, you are incorrect, most often, those who find the lies are either competing for recognition or they are in a different camp and both are motives to expose bad science. But on the other hand, when addressing a major Cash cow like say “EVOLUTION”, there is a greater motive to join together against the religious science professionals and defend the lie at all costs. You do know how long Pilt Down Man lasted as proof of evolution don’t you? And Ernst Haeckel’s fake embryo drawings are still in textbooks today, and just about everybody now knows he lied. But the benefit to promoting evolution far outweighed the need for truth. It’s the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” lie. Do you know about his fake dog embryo drawings don’t you? There are books and articles that document just how wide spread fraud and lies are in science. Do you really want to defend science integrity?
When I asked:
“Have you contacted Pew to ask them how they define “Christian”? Or is that unimportant as long as their use of the term seem to indicate that anyone one who claims to be Christian, is Christian.”
You replied:
“A Christian is someone who believes he is following the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
Please tell me, where is that definition stated in the Bible? That definition is incorrect.
You continued:
“Anything else is interpretation adopted by a specific denomination. I’ve attended at least a dozen different Christian churches (plus synagogues and temples throughout the world) in my life, and every single one believes they are “biblical Christians,” every single one emphasizes and de-emphasizes certain biblical claims, and every single one is certain THEIR interpretation is the only “right” one.”
And you think that one’s interpretation of the Bible based on their denomination’s teaching determines
Their status as a Christian?
Oh, just a minute, you gave me a Bible lesson to prove your point. So let’s take a look.
You said:
“For instance, Protestants believe that salvation comes from faith alone (Ephesians 2:8, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:8-13),”
In addition to the fact that “Protestants” are not monolithic and do not all believe the same things, I have to say, Sorry, but two of the three texts you used were incorrect for that claim. Acts 4:12 and Romans 10:8-13 says nothing about salvation by faith alone. Where did you borrow this list from?
You said:
“whereas Catholics say salvation requires both faith and works (James 2:24, 1 Corinthians 13:2, Matthew 25:31-46) and that you can lose your salvation (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 2 Corinthians 13:5, John 15:1-11).”
Many “Protestants” teach the same two points. Or did you forget to check. That is as far as you are correct about what these verses teach. 1 Corinthians 13:2 does not teach works requirement. Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach works are “required” for salvation. If you truly were interested in understanding the Bible (which I seriously doubt), you would have taken the time to get better information, but since your goal is just to discredit, it seem like you just rely in atheist talking points.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:46 pm
PT. 5
You continued:
“And even within such major divisions there are many subdivisions, such as Lutherans teaching that anyone can choose to accept salvation, while Calvinists teach that only God chooses whom to save. These are all dramatically different interpretations of the SAME BOOK. The scholars of ALL those sects study the Bible in depth…yet arrive at drastically different conclusions. And it’s all due to differences in interpretation. The Bible doesn’t come with a key or guide to determine what should be interpreted literally vs. metaphorically…and therein lies the confusion (so much for God not being the author of confusion…).”
Nothing you have said here refutes my claim that Christians do not sexually abuse Children, nor
does it define what a Christian is. Pointing out the diverse doctrinal views of people who claim to be Christians and their organizational officiations, which is due to human pride, rebellion and ignorance,
Only demonstrates why Christians must be dedicated to sound hermeneutics and careful study and not be blind followers of people with degrees or positions of leadership in organizations.
You continued:
“But none of that matters, does it, because I’m sure YOU figured out the “one true” Christian interpretation, and all the other thousands of denominations that disagree with you are wrong…right?” 😉
It sounds to me like you are projecting here; it is you who seems to think you are spot on in all your perspectives. Yes I do indeed understand how to properly interpret The Bible. But as usual, you atheists are all over the place with your illusions of “brilliant” observations about the Bible, Christianity, Jesus and religious denominations etc. I would be delighted to spar with you about all of these, but in a public dialogue, not here. Here it is much too easy for you to evade and waist time and space.
To my statement:
“And thus evil done by people who claim to be Christians, does not make that evil a Christian act. How is that a No True Scotsman fallacy.”
You made a commendable effort to answer:
“First, the structure of a No True Scotsman fallacy is where someone makes a claim (like “No Christians commit evil acts”), then someone else points out examples that contradict that claim (like “Here are multiple documented convictions of Christians committing evil acts”), so the perpetrator of the fallacy excludes those who are the exception to the claim (“No TRUE Christians commit evil acts”). Look up the definition for yourself.”
No need to look it up, I understand the fallacy.
The flaw in your argument is that you have not provided any examples, nor have you correctly defined what a Christian is. Your documentations are at best, someone’s documentation of evils done by people who “claimed” to be or who were “thought” to be Christians. This is not rocket science.
LikeLike
May 17, 2023 at 6:48 pm
PT. 6 conclusion.
Your lack of understanding continued when you said:
“Keep in mind that Christians who commit evil believe that they are NOT committing evil, because “BY DEFINITION Christians cannot commit evil” (No True Scotsman). That’s how they justify beating, murdering and discriminating against LGBTQ people—all in the name of “love,” of course.”
What a person who claims to be a Christian denies about their evil act does not make them a Christian. So your point is moot. I am beginning to think that you are a mootist. Please give up your effort to be brilliant by invoking incorrect “No True Scotsman” fallacies.
You said:
“Of course, in your mind I’ll bet all the Christian denominations that embrace the LGBTQ community are perpetrating evil, just as they accuse you of doing, right?”
Finally you have something right. I do indeed, and with good reason. And that accusation is one of the few accusations they get right. But they get so many other wrong that what they get right is meaningless. Homophobe, murderer, hateful, bigot. You know, the usual efforts to silence us with accusations hoping to shame us to silence.
You said:
Oh, but you wouldn’t be singing that tune if Christianity were growing, now would you? 😉
How do you know it isn’t? You don’t even know what a Christian is. And yet you say:
“And most of my friends and family are ex-Christians, and they would vehemently object to your dismissal of their beliefs. One of my friends believed so strongly that he entered the seminary before losing his belief, while another was a pastor for 30 YEARS before realizing he was an atheist. In both cases it was by in-depth study of the Bible that they lost their belief, when they realized that early Christian history and beliefs were nothing like what they had been taught in church. Thus the truism:”
And this makes my point and my argument, you are clueless about because people were deeply involved with religion, worked in church for years does not make them Christians. There are many people who do things in the name of Christ and “for” their Christian “faith”, who were never Christians. Citing such examples does not make your case.
And quoting other atheist and stating your journey into atheism through reading the Bible still does not refute my argument. But you know this, you are just here to promote your atheism and flaunt what you think are brilliant reasons to deny God’s existence, and thus any of His moral laws that you don’t like.
You then give a horrible example of us putting ourselves in the trans person’s shoes.
This also demonstrates just how little you understand the issues we are at odds with you about.
You said:
“…But I would urge you to put yourself in the shoes of a trans person and try to understand their situation. Imagine people wanted to legislate away your rights to be a Christian, using the sexual assault scandals in the various Christian sects as reason to deny you the right to read the Bible or go to church. Imagine everyone denied you the right to even be a Christian, and you had to fear for your safety from those non-Christians. Do you think that would be just or fair? Would you want to live in such a community?”
You’d think that a religion with a persecution complex would show compassion to others who are persecuted…but instead you do the same thing to others. Well, when you’re used to privilege, equality feels like persecution. Your delusional idea that we have a right to claim we are what we cannot possibly be, and everyone must believe and affirm it is madness. You know this, but since it slaps at morals, the Bible and Christianity, it is just right for you.
I look forward to our public dialogue.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 6:22 am
“Ok, you see, this is what Scalia and others have complained about you, you are not here to have an intelligent dialogue, you are here to promote your leftists ideas on a conservative platform, so you don’t even bother to give intelligent refutations, just bold claims and religious confidence in psychologists and scientists.”
This is interesting. How do you suppose arguments are supposed to work? If you make factually questionable or clearly false statements, I’m going to call them out and provide my reasons for doing so. That’s how arguments work, and I would expect no less from you. I’m really not interested in promoting leftist or rightist ideas at all; what I’m interested in claims that are supported by credible evidence. That’s it. And if the evidence conflicts with what I thought was true, I will change my mind.
Scalia has demonstrated that he can’t handle disagreement, and when someone provides evidence that contradicts his claims, he resorts to name-calling and ad hominems instead of reasoned argument. I’m just not interested in that, and for this reason I’ve given up engaging with him—at least on this and some other threads. I do appreciate that you haven’t resorted to name-calling, but you are engaging in ad hominems.
“The way you ignored the report given by Jennifer Bilek, and her investigative journalist status and focused on trivializing her credibility based on something else she does, as if that discredits her research and the references she provided, is typical of your tactics.”
The term “investigative journalist” is a label anyone can call themselves. It’s not something that requires any qualifications at all, and is thus meaningless without a credible body of work. I did look her up and found she has almost nothing out there, just a couple articles and vlog posts, and her work is not supported by proper references. Yes, I realize I could have somehow missed some great body of professional work she’s done, but it’s not my job to hunt down that information for your argument.
Furthermore, you sent me to a website by a vlogger who claimed right from the beginning that a transgender woman is “a man pretending to be a woman,” which is factually inaccurate according to virtually the entire psychological science community. And then she went off into conspiracy theory-level ridiculousness, stating: “You’re looking at, basically, what is essentially a lot of powerful men making money and having their fantasies fulfilled by trapping kids in perpetual adolescence and rendering them sterile so that they have to rely on the medical industry to live and to one day, if they want to, reproduce. And so the most powerful, richest and the most evil individuals in the world are working together to push this from the top down with the help of the media, with the help of the most powerful politicians, and with the help of corporations.” No credible sources for any of this claim, just stating it as if it’s fact. That’s a “Pizzagate” and “January 6 wasn’t an insurrection”-level conspiracy theory claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and she provided none of it.
So yeah, I think I’m perfectly justified in dismissing her claims and the claims of her interviewee. If you want me to take claims seriously, provide actual scientific evidence.
“You play a slick game of “scientist know best and they are above reproach or question when it comes to what they claim or having arterial motives that are a betrayal of what they claim to want or are trying to do”. Your denial of the massive corruption in science, psychology and medical industry for that matter, is horrifying and frustrating to say the least.”
I never said anything remotely like that. I said that “What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson.” Furthermore, I made it clear that they are NOT above reproach by noting, “I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money.”
I’m sorry, but it is not reasonable for you to use an amateur video filled with unsupported, conspiracy theory-level claims as credible evidence to support your wild assertions. You make claims like there are “impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists,” also without any credible support.
I am certainly NOT saying scientists are beyond reproach, but because of the scientific method (specifically the falsifiability and reproducibility requirements) they are FAR more likely to be exposed for making false or unsupported claims. And for you to use a conspiracy theorist’s home video to counter the professional assessments of the psychological science community is just not reasonable. Surely you can see how the two sets of claims are not anywhere in the same level. My position is not unreasonable here.
“I would rather challenge you to a public debate on this and on your “Evolution” claims. Please show us how confident you are in your worldview and slick comments you have been making here and however many other threads you have posted on.”
Oh, that would be great! In fact, I have the perfect venue. This Friday I will be a guest host on the Truth Wanted show run by the Atheist Community of Austin (the same organization that runs The Atheist Experience). The show airs Fridays from 7:00 pm-8:30 pm CT. You can call in at 1-512-991-9242, or use your computer: https://tiny.cc/calltw. Here’s the website: https://www.atheist-community.org/truthwanted. We discuss any topic, but Christian apologetics figure in prominently. Feel free to call me, and the entire thing will be both streamed live and uploaded to YouTube afterward.
“Now I am going to go out on a limb and say that you will decline, because you know you would not be able to play the game that you play in printed dialogues.”
Well, that’s probably the most wrong claim you’ve made so far, because I LOVE arguing with theists (especially fundamentalists and creationists) live! In fact, on YouTube I have half a dozen videos of my debates with a variety of Christians. I argue with street preachers whenever I get the chance. And I even debated the pastor at his church talk supposedly debunking evolution. Even though I was the only atheist in a room full of Christians, I wasn’t at all shy about addressing the pastor’s mistaken claims on the topic. So I’m looking forward to this! I’ll see you there.
Hmm, I see you have made a bunch more posts to me on this thread. Unfortunately, I just don’t have the time to read or respond to them. I have too many arguments running at once to get to all of them in a timely manner (you may have noticed), so I try to keep it down to one post per person.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:33 am
derekmathias My reply to your post #37
You said:
“This is interesting. How do you suppose arguments are supposed to work? If you make factually questionable or clearly false statements, I’m going to call them out and provide my reasons for doing so. That’s how arguments work, and I would expect no less from you.”
But that is now what is going on here Derek. I would invite a honest effort to get at what is true, even if it means I am proven to be in error. That is something I pride myself in inviting, actual correction or refutation of a view I hold. If done successfully, I learn and improve. But when claims and questionable sources are used-relied on with no accountability or willingness to reevaluate the source relied on when brought into question, I have to believe there is something else going on here.
You said:
“I’m really not interested in promoting leftist or rightist ideas at all; what I’m interested in claims that are supported by credible evidence. That’s it. And if the evidence conflicts with what I thought was true, I will change my mind.”
I don’t think so Derek, but let’s put that to a test, shall we? You called the Jan 6, event an Insurrection, using the left media’s terms and views about it. (So much for not being left). I ask you what is an insurrection, and what about Jan. 6 constitutes one? You think that a person can determine their gender against what natural biology clearly is, and you erroneously rely on what some “medical/science professionals” claim to support your convictions. How is that honest, when you know for a fact that a male can never be female and a female can never be a male. Your efforts here are not honest, they are activistic. Touting what medical and science professionals who have motivations to lie say, is not evidence of truth, but of insincerity. You know there are people who ‘think” (say) they are not human but cats, lizards, aliens, and some who “think” (say) that their body parts (arms, legs etc.) do not belong on them. Do you defend them, celebrate them, fight for their rights to have their limbs cut off?
You said:
“The term “investigative journalist” is a label anyone can call themselves…”
Derek, are you seriously saying that a person who does investigative work, has to have a body of work that has been approved as credible by ????, before their “investigative journalist” title can be meaningful? (perhaps that is why you rely on so many bad sources).
All you have to do is check what she provides as her evidence and sources to determine if what she has “investigated” is credible, no matter how few investigations she has done or who approves them.
You said:
“Furthermore, you sent me to a website by a vlogger who claimed right from the beginning that a transgender woman is “a man pretending to be a woman,” which is factually inaccurate according to virtually the entire psychological science community.”
You haven’t yet explained how the “psychological science community” determines this is factually inaccurate. What scientific test is given to a Trans person to determine they are a Trans? You remember the lie about the homosexual gene that was exposed after it got lots of mileage and had many believing they were “born that way”?
(seen next post)
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:38 am
derekmathias My reply to your post #37 PT.2
You said:
“And then she went off into conspiracy theory-level ridiculousness, stating: “You’re looking at, basically, what is essentially a lot of powerful men making money and having their fantasies fulfilled by trapping kids in perpetual adolescence and rendering them sterile so that they have to rely on the medical industry to live and to one day, if they want to, reproduce…”
This is a good example of how you do what you accuse me and others here of doing. You simply ignore the logic of the argument she gave and call it “conspiracy” as if nothing she said makes any real since. When you know it does.
She said money trails don’t lie and it leads back to the elites in the techno-medical complex.
She named names and gave their status in the industries and their operations/connections.
Martine (Martin) Aliana Rothblatt , Well respected renowned in media circles political circles, and technology circles. She points out his publicly stated goal and philosophy to dismantle the normal human state in favor of digital existence. He has no respect for human norms and seeks to replace it with abstract ides of different existence. So naturally he promotes trans idea. After all, He is a he pretending to be a she. Jennifer also mentions Udall Harare, who is Klaus Schwab’s right hand man, pushing for a virtual reality world to replace the natural world and Mark Zuckerber and his “metaverse”. Jeff Bezos, Mark Benioff, Laverne Cox, Fertility and gender clinics investor is also mentioned. All are channels of getting away from normal existence which the Trans movement features in comfortably. She also gave a logical connection to the Lgbt and corporatized identities because of their dependence of medical help. And after the Aids crisis, they had this corporate medical apparatus that now needed a new cause to keep it going and the money flowing, that cause became the trans people. Thus the motivation to convince people they were trans, which is easy for children and young. Since they could not sell the sexual fetishes of adult men to children, they had to convince the children that they were not who they were, to make them new clients for the medical complex that was set up for aids profit. A rebranding to youth. And due to the sterilization of millions of children via puberty blockers etc. They will need medical aid to have children when they are older. And you ignore all this as “conspiracy”, yet you claim to be for truth.
You said:
“..Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and she provided none of it.”
No, Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence, just reasonable evidence.
You said:
“So yeah, I think I’m perfectly justified in dismissing her claims and the claims of her interviewee. If you want me to take claims seriously, provide actual scientific evidence.”
What scientific evidence do you need to see to booming transgender medical industry? Why are the names she gave and their investments not sufficient? Why is it not sufficient that major Grooming is taking place and Corporate promotion of transgenderism is everywhere, even advertising to and for children as little as 2 an 3 years old who know nothing about sex? Derek, you are not at all being honest, you are promoting your agenda and you are pretending not to have one. That is dishonest.
You said:
“I never said anything remotely like that. I said that “What you’re doing here is attempting to dismiss the findings and conclusions of millions of the world’s scientific experts on psychology—the very people who devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain, studying their subject far more than virtually any non-scientific layperson.” Furthermore, I made it clear that they are NOT above reproach by noting, “I do of course concur that the psychiatrists who base their practices on the scientific data can indeed make a lot of money, and there are certainly some who are in it just for the money.”
There you go again Derek, you think that by admitting some psychiatrists are money motivated, that exonerates you from your being accused of faith and claims that what the many say about trans is true. I address your unfounded faith in what they say about their pro Trans research. You have not justified it by saying they devote their lives to understanding the mind and brain. That does not mean they understand the mind and brain or that they are right in their claims. You know this, if you don’t you should since you claim to be so well researched Scientists are always making claims about understanding things the really DON’T understand. Yet you use them as reliable irrefutable, undeniable sources. Why?
You said:
“I’m sorry, but it is not reasonable for you to use an amateur video filled with unsupported, conspiracy theory-level claims as credible evidence to support your wild assertions. You make claims like there are “impressionable children and youth in our society today who are being groomed by psychologists,” also without any credible support.”
Derek, again, you ignore my proof and you lie saying I gave none. I gave you my own personal eye witness statement that my children were victims of such efforts of grooming and I referenced many that you can find in published reports if you bothered to read them. It seems that you are not as dedicated to checking conservative sources as you claim, or you would have come across many such published cases. As much as you rely on links to defend your views, it is strange that you could find none reporting on the massive grooming going on. Why is that?
You said:
“I am certainly NOT saying scientists are beyond reproach, but because of the scientific method (specifically the falsifiability and reproducibility requirements) they are FAR more likely to be exposed for making false or unsupported claims.”
This is yet another example of how you skirt past my actual argument and misrepresent my point to avoid having to refute my claim. A typical atheist tactic. I challenged your Falsifiable, reproducible argument, and you did not refute me, you just repeat your argument.
You said:
“And for you to use a conspiracy theorist’s home video to counter the professional assessments of the psychological science community is just not reasonable. Surely you can see how the two sets of claims are not anywhere in the same level. My position is not unreasonable here.”
Again you misrepresent my point, I did not provide the video of Jennifer to refute what you claimed about medical support for “trans people”, and you would know this if you were really paying attention and trying to be accurate. The video was to point out the industry motives for publishing the false science support for “trans people” trans is major big profit. Can you provide me with a litany of pro-trans research dating back 10 or 20 years? Since they have been around as you claim for such a long time, surly you can show the abundant research supporting them from the 20’s 30’s 40’s 50’s and 60’s can’t you?
To my public debate challenge, you invite me to a bias atheist platform hot seat instead. Now I will indeed catch the program and try to call in. But that will not do for a balanced and fair discussion. You know this. Why won’t you join me in a moderated discussion where no one side had the control of the mic or the cut off switch. And there is not hogging the mic etc. Is that to balanced a playing field for you?
I will also view your youtubes if you provide the link to your channel, but you should know that there are very many ignorant, dumb, silly, uninformed and just plain false preacher, Pastors and ‘Christian”, so it is not hard to find such to beat up on intellectually. That does not impress or concern me. While I can’t speak for them, I can speak for me, so let’s do this, at the least, it will be will be useful for both of us to have no interference and not wiggle room.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:40 am
Dingbat writes:
This is demonstrably false. I’ve shown repeatedly through previous debates that I’m more than capable of fully and completely addressing every one of Derek’s objections. It is rather the other way around. Derek resorts to lying, reframing and deflection when confronted with logical arguments.
As proof (again), all one needs to do is read Bye Bye Roe (only 15 posts) to see Derek’s dishonesty in action.
LikeLike
May 23, 2023 at 11:54 am
Preacherteacher writes,
That is precisely the kind of “debates” you’ll see on Derek’s YouTube page. He doesn’t take on anybody who’s knowledgeable for obvious reasons. He’s been at it long enough to avoid competent Christian apologists like the plague. And when he runs into them in blogs such as this, he resorts to his typical fallacies to save face and turn tables. He’s not able to do that on video with an experienced apologist, so he avoids it altogether.
His YouTube page is HERE.
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 3:58 pm
Thank you so much Scalia, that link is a great blessing and help. After watching a few of his videos, I am convinced that my view of him is accurate. He is a typical atheist who knows he is not being honest or even accurate many times when he addresses the Bible. But he hates God and or the idea of God so much that he has to do all he can to discredit the God he claims does not exist.
He has clearly borrowed his arguments from top atheist, nothing new about his accusations. So refuting him will be a cake walk. But he knows how easy it is to get thousands of views by attacking the Bible. (My guess is that he is monetized and making money from youtube). I will be going over all of his videos now and doing a refutation of them as time permits. They are a great tool for me to train other Christians on how to respond to such arrogant errors and ignorance. I would have mercy on him if he did not claim to be such an authority on the Bible etc. After what you just posted, his pride may get the best of him and he just might take me up on my challenge. Either way, I have his videos so I really don’t need him any longer.
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 4:48 pm
Scalia, I find it interesting that Derek complained about you calling him names, yet he contently calls God names in his videos. his gross practice of misrepresenting the Bible, God and Jesus, makes him hypocritical to complain about anything here he experiences here. He is clearly a Richard Dawkins Zealot. Sad But he is clearly not interested in an intelligent dialogue to get to the truth. He is clearly a atheist Zealot activist.
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 10:06 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write:
Yes, that’s the key to people like him. They’re obsessed with spending much of their lives attacking faith in God. The common pretext among his type is their alleged need to counter the political agenda of the Religious Right. They claim to feel so threatened by right wing activism, they are “forced” to engage their underlying religious beliefs in order to weaken the faith of believers and to dissuade others from being “duped” by specious arguments. Indeed, their opposition to faith has become, for all practical purposes, a faith of its own. They devote themselves to their “calling” with evangelistic fervor, and have a coercive spirit on par with the inquisitors of old.
But of course, the alleged opposition to the religious Right is just a guise for their hatred of God (Rom. 1:28). The overwhelming majority of people couldn’t care less about heady philosophical debates over cosmological arguments, intelligent design or evolution. The Left’s success has been in the political arena. One doesn’t hold enough of the electorate to influence an election with philosophical arguments on whether God exists. The appeal to politics is only raised to give them cover for what would be bizarre behavior otherwise–obsessing day and night over proving the non-existence of God. A normal person who doesn’t believe in God would simply carry on with his or her life and not give a hoot whether anybody else believed in God. But not these folks. Their leftist pedigree drives them to control others, even down to the thoughts they possess. It’s really sad, but one day every one of them will bend their knee and confess the Lordship of Christ (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10-11).
LikeLike
May 24, 2023 at 10:35 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write:
The contempt I express at Derek’s expense is well-earned. I treat every interlocutor with utmost respect until they prove beyond ambiguity that they’re not arguing in good faith. When a person is clearly not being honest, I lose all respect and consider it a waste of time to play the game of respect with a liar.
Derek made his appearance here some 11 years ago with what he considered a silver bullet refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). He repeatedly posted his video on the matter without sustained engagement from the regulars here. His arguments were clearly fallacious, which is why I didn’t bother to jump in. But since others wouldn’t fully engage him for whatever reason, I decided to respectfully challenge him. In the course of what was initially a very cordial discussion, he lied about what he knew of the Thomistic arguments for God’s existence, and he repeatedly attempted to twist away from the very obvious logical error he was making against the KCA (the logical-possibility-warrants-refutation fallacy). The fact that something is logically possible does not constitute a refutation of an argument, because the objection stands defeated on the same standard. Bizarrely, he destroyed the very basis for his appeal to evidence by undermining the very empirical data he cited. I pointed these things out repeatedly, but his pride would not allow him to admit his obvious errors. I suspect his atheistbots would lose faith in their “pope” if he acknowledged but the slightest error, so Derek ill-advisedly chose to save face rather than exhibit the integrity to admit a mistake. When he showed his colors, I switched to third-person dialog and resolved to never debate him again.
Oddly, he kept begging me to debate other topics. And he would burn post after post trying to goad me into another debate. He wanted to start afresh, so, against my better judgment, I left the past behind and tried anew. That resulted in a 500+ post thread, which included others, that again proved what a waste of time it all was. Thus, when the Roe thread came around, I went into full attack mode because it was obvious he did not even read the Dobbs decision before criticizing it. Indeed, he hadn’t even read the Constitution (you should read the laughable comments he made about it). Thus, I told him that I would no longer debate him. I will, however, post my opinions on various threads as I feel necessary and will counter-swing when he attacks me personally.
LikeLike
May 29, 2023 at 11:18 am
Dear Scalia,
Attacking someone by calling them names casts a worse shadow on you than it does on them. The first time I read you calling Derek a “dingbat”, I was appalled. I don’t think you are using that as a term of endearment or out of kindness or love or in jest. If you are, I apologize. But I’m not sure if Derek is feeling your concern for his soul with those type of names. If you could refrain from name calling and attack the argument instead of the person, it would nice. Thank you.
LikeLike
May 29, 2023 at 9:43 pm
mizpeh1 naturally, Scalia can speak for himself so what I say here is not an effort to defend him. I can see that you are a concerned believer who perhaps believes that there is never any condition under which a Christian could or should use hard words to or about someone. That to do so is not loving and therefore it is out of the will of God and a bad example to those who are not believers. am I correct, if not please help me understand your perspective better.
LikeLike
May 29, 2023 at 11:06 pm
Sister Carol, you wrote:
Thank you for offering your opinion. I can agree that if this were without a history, my current deportment toward Derek would be most inappropriate. However, I have numerous times both here and elsewhere explained why I approach him as I do. I don’t know what else I can say now that would add to what I’ve already posted. I will try one more time to summarize.
First, I linked to a couple of earlier debates which demonstrates my respectful demeanor. I treat everybody with respect and assume that they have the best of intentions until they prove otherwise. You and I have disagreed without rancor. I have also disagreed with others without any hint of acrimony (e.g., Dino and Greg). I welcome disagreement and good-faith argument.
Second, Derek has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he does not have the best of intentions. Indeed, he is a demonstrable liar whose only agenda is overthrowing the faith of Christians. When he refuses to acknowledge plain errors, deliberately reframes an argument to avoid admitting a substantive error, and asserts knowledge of subjects and works he’s ignorant of, in part, because he’s never read the source material in question, there’s no point pretending that this is some poor innocent soul who’s simply misguided. It must be remembered that Derek has thousands of followers. He’s not interested in leading them to the truth. He’s only interested in feeding them atheist propaganda. Thus, his obvious mendacity is explained by his need to save face before his followers. He has, consequently, earned the opprobrium of every decent person. This is not without scriptural precedent:
Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Acts 8:20-23
But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Titus 1:10-11
For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.
Whether these individuals are in the church or out of the church, once they show their true colors, they’ve crossed a line. These are not individuals in need of further evangelism. They are instruments of Satan who must be opposed. There is a world of difference between a sincerely mistaken person and a deliberate liar. I’ve provided more than sufficient evidence that Derek is willfully dishonest. If you’ve read the material and disagree, that’s entirely up to you. As I’ve told Derek, I am perfectly content to let others decide whether my claims are accurate. The feedback I have received from others who’ve read the links is unanimous thus far. Even if my “name-calling” is inappropriate in their view, there’s no doubt about’s Derek’s dishonesty.
Finally, I’ve repeatedly told Derek that I won’t debate him again. I will, however, comment on Jason’s columns as I see fit. And if Derek offers a rebuttal of what I write, and I feel that his rebuttal is off-target (which is 100% of the case thus far), I will say so without further comment. Derek now claims to be uninterested in debating me. That’s all well and good from my end. I only wish he had respected that when I requested the same earlier.
So, thanks again for sharing your opinion with me. I respectfully dissent.
LikeLike
May 30, 2023 at 12:36 am
Preacherteacher writes,
Indeed, as John the Baptist said:
Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
And Jesus said essentially the same thing:
Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Also recall what He said of Herod:
Luke 13:32
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Now, Jesus wasn’t calling Herod good-looking. The term fox is a metaphor for a dishonest person. In other words, calling a spade a spade is perfectly Christlike.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 8:56 am
Well, I pop in to this thread to thank you for being willing to go on Truth Wanted, only to find the following bit of nastiness from you. Really, Preacherteacher, is that necessary? You were much more friendly on the show.
“Thank you so much Scalia, that link is a great blessing and help. After watching a few of his videos, I am convinced that my view of him is accurate.”
Okay, by now I’m guessing you realize that your characterization of me and my knowledge is not accurate. First you said, “Now I am going to go out on a limb and say that you will decline, because you know you would not be able to play the game that you play in printed dialogues. I can far more quickly check you when you say things that are not true or intentionally misleading or off topic of the question. You will have no doubt, what you think is a legitimate excuse not to accept.”
Except that clearly I ENJOY direct debate and I have no trouble discussing my points accurately live, as demonstrated by the fact that I invited you to Truth Wanted.
Then you called me hypocritical for calling God names: “I find it interesting that Derek complained about you calling him names, yet he contently calls God names in his videos. his gross practice of misrepresenting the Bible, God and Jesus, makes him hypocritical to complain about anything here he experiences here.”
Except that there is a huge difference between someone using generic insults in place of rational argument (that’s an ad hominem fallacy, which is what Scalia does repeatedly), and someone who lists the evidence for concluding a descriptive label (which is what I do when I conclude that God—as described in the Bible—is evil).
So if I were to claim that God condones killing babies, and then I just called him an idiot in place of providing any actual evidence, I would be guilty of an ad hominem. But if I were to instead provide multiple examples of God condoning the killing of babies, and then concluded based on that evidence that God is a baby-killer, that would be a properly reasoned argument and conclusion. See the difference? (I could also say that “calling God names” is a victimless crime, but that would take the discussion off on another direction. 😉 )
Then you accuse me of hating God and claiming he doesn’t exist: “But he hates God and or the idea of God so much that he has to do all he can to discredit the God he claims does not exist. So refuting him will be a cake walk.”
Well, two problems there: first off, I’m an agnostic atheist, which means I do NOT make the claim no gods exist, only that I don’t believe any gods exist (there is a major difference between claims of knowledge and claims of belief). The second problem is that I don’t hate God. I don’t think it’s even really possible to hate something you don’t believe exists (I mean, do you hate Darth Vader?).
I suspect it’ll come to a surprise to you, but my arguments actually have nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. My issue is with Christians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on society, especially the undermining of science. But a lot of Christians make this mistake, enough so I made a video explaining my motivations. It’s titled “Why I Make Videos Against God,” in case you’re interested in viewing it.
Then you claimed, “He has clearly borrowed his arguments from top atheist, nothing new about his accusations” and “He is clearly a Richard Dawkins Zealot.” Except that I’ve read almost nothing of his, apart from a few short articles (in fact, I think I even mentioned that fact at the beginning of the show). In pursuit of my degree in evolution science, I studied the science itself, not so much books written for the layperson, nor was I interested in the opinions of famous atheists. I was never a believer, but I became an anti-theist the way most people do: by reading the Bible and paying attention to the implications of everything it said. So while I am certainly an atheist, I’m clearly no “Richard Dawkins Zealot.”
As for my accusations being nothing new, I think you’ll find I often approach the arguments from different perspectives and/or with different evidence. My arguments against biblical free will, for example, are none I’ve seen others making.
Also, on Truth Wanted you also made several more claims that are inaccurate, like equating atheism with evolution, equating atheism with abiogenesis, and calling biogenesis a law instead of an observation that was never intended to apply to the origin of the first life itself.
“He is a typical atheist who knows he is not being honest or even accurate many times when he addresses the Bible.”
On what basis do you claim I’m not being honest? I’ve yet to have anyone reasonably refute my claims about the Bible. I’ve had people like Scalia, Paul and Elaine make plenty of assertions and deflections (followed by a LOT of anger, mischaracterization and insults—as you’ve seen), but no successful refutations. At best, some of my objections to the character of God in the Bible are a matter of opinion, which people can reasonably disagree about, but I do my best to make sure I’m not taking anything in the Bible out of context. If you think I’ve mischaracterized anything in the Bible, I would want nothing less than for you to point it out.
Despite your rancorous words here, on the Truth Wanted show you were quite reasonable and friendly, and even said you thought I’m a “nice and intelligent guy who genuinely wants to get at the truth.” Thank you, I appreciate that, but your positions are contradictory. Which version of your assessment of me is the tone you honestly hold?
As you can see, you’ve made a lot of mischaracterizations about me, but my point here is not to harangue you for making mistakes. I just want to point out that you’ve made a lot of unwarranted assumptions about me that could have been avoided by simply asking. And that should be a clue that I’ve done my homework, and so refuting my arguments won’t be the cakewalk you think it will be.
“I will be going over all of his videos now and doing a refutation of them as time permits. They are a great tool for me to train other Christians on how to respond to such arrogant errors and ignorance.”
Thank you, I would appreciate that. Feel free to leave your refutations in the comments for all to see, and I assure you I will respond to them rationally.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 9:27 am
Dingbat writes:
Here, Derek displays his fundamental ignorance of logical fallacies (which is why he argues fallaciously). Name-calling is not what an ad hominem fallacy is. An ad hominem fallacy is committed when a person is directly attacked in some measure and that attack is used as either an element or basis for rejecting said person’s argument. A “generic insult,” isn’t fallacious since it isn’t the basis for rejecting a claim. Calling a spade a spade might be uncharitable, depending on the context, but it isn’t fallacious. Recall that a fallacy is any mistake in reasoning that affects the cogency of an argument. Name-calling isn’t an argument, so it isn’t fallacious by definition.
As I’ve said repeatedly, I’ve provided plenty of evidence that demonstrates the “successful refutations” of Derek’s arguments. Derek has earned the disdain he receives here and elsewhere because he’s more interested in advancing his agenda than he is in the truth.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 9:37 am
Mizpeh1 said: “Dear Scalia
Attacking someone by calling them names casts a worse shadow on you than it does on them. The first time I read you calling Derek a “dingbat”, I was appalled. I don’t think you are using that as a term of endearment or out of kindness or love or in jest. If you are, I apologize. But I’m not sure if Derek is feeling your concern for his soul with those type of names. If you could refrain from name calling and attack the argument instead of the person, it would nice. Thank you.”
Thank you, Mizpeh1, I really wish more people here would do that. As I understand it, this is supposed to be a blog where people can disagree and argue ideas, not attack each other—and such behavior is not a good look for people who profess to be Christians. Heated arguments are fine, but ad hominem attacks are not.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 12:52 pm
Dingbat writes:
If certain participants would tell the truth and argue in good faith, and if said persons would quit pretending to know something they don’t, then they’d perhaps garner the respect they crave. They reap what they sow. If they want to be honored, they should act honorably.
LikeLike
May 31, 2023 at 7:04 pm
derekmathias my response to your post 50:
Well now Derek, you should notice that my posts were pre- your show. I did indeed see a different side of you there. As you saw of me as you said. Post Show all I did was ask a question. But neither my pre or post comments were “nasty”. That is unless you consider any fore of criticism to be “nasty”, but then that would also apply to you would it not?
You said:
“ ….and someone who lists the evidence for concluding a descriptive label (which is what I do when I conclude that God—as described in the Bible—is evil).”
So even in this you refuse to be honest. Are you saying that because you provided what you ‘THINK” is evidence, your referring to God as “Evil” is not calling Him names but “a descriptive label?
Is this how you plan to defend yourself, by creating your own meaning and definitions for what you are doing or saying? Now that would concern me in a dialogue.
To your comment starting with:
“So if I were to claim that God condones killing babies, and then I just called him an idiot in place of providing any actual evidence, I would be guilty of an ad hominem……”
Derek, you are tripping over your intellect, you just switch words on me. You slyly went from my statement about you calling God names, to ad hominem, I did not say you used an ad hominem when you called God names. I get it, you understand philosophy, I do to, but I am not interested in flexing my philosophy knowledge with you on this point, I simply pointed out your double standard and hypocritical complaint.
You said:
“…. first off, I’m an agnostic atheist, which means I do NOT make the claim no gods exist, only that I don’t believe any gods exist (there is a major difference between claims of knowledge and claims of belief). The second problem is that I don’t hate God. I don’t think it’s even really possible to hate something you don’t believe exists (I mean, do you hate Darth Vader?).”
That’s funny, you clearly understand the foolish mistake that Atheists of the past had made by arguing that God did not exist. That argument got their intellectual hides tanned so well that the smart ones, gave that up, and reinvented their approach. Enter the “new” atheist, some hide behind the “agnostic” claim, but you take both. And you think that saying that you “don’t believe any God exists” exempts you from a knowledge claim. Interesting. Rather than waist time on that conundrum. I hope you will take me up on an open discussion controlled by time and a cross examination period. So we can see who really has the goods on this.
I did not see your “Why I make videos against God” only “My youtube channel” but that was clear enough.
Another interesting claim by you. You spend much time trying to discredit God, Christianity and the Bible on your site, but you say that your arguments have nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. You then claim that your issue is with “Christians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on society, especially the undermining of science”.
By imposing, do you mean forcing others to accept their religious beliefs? How do you define “impose:? And as for undermining science, we can deal with that accusation in our discussion and see which of us are actually ‘undermining” Science.
And while you claim that you are not a fan of Dawkins, or a student of other top atheist, I respectfully cannot believe that. While I understand your apparent need to give the impression that your arguments are original because you are such a great thinker and have studied the Bible so well that you came to your horrible conclusions all on your own, I simply don’t buy it. But really it does not matter, the only thing that matters is that you are very wrong on so much of what you pride yourself of having studied and obtained a degree in that helped you arrive at your current view of God, the Bible and Christianity.
You said:
“As for my accusations being nothing new, I think you’ll find I often approach the arguments from different perspectives and/or with different evidence. My arguments against biblical free will, for example, are none I’ve seen others making.”
“Often”? But you only list one. Why? What there of your arguments are original?
You said:
“Also, on Truth Wanted you also made several more claims that are inaccurate, like equating atheism with evolution, equating atheism with abiogenesis, and calling biogenesis a law instead of an observation that was never intended to apply to the origin of the first life itself.”
Here again, you as other evolutionists atheist, try to create your own barriers to avoid the truth.
No, I was not inaccurate, Atheism I never equated with evolution, but I did say that Atheism must rely on Evolution. Without Evolution, Atheism is even more irrational than it is with evolution. Again, I did not “equate” atheism with abiogenesis, I said that Atheist instantly revert to the subject of abiogenesis whenever the biogenesis is brought up. As for calling it a law, I won’t quibble over the term, principle, theory, rule, whatever you call it, it is an established observation and you know it. And on what do you base your denial of its intended application, or apparently your objection to it being applied to origins?. Never mind, we can discuss that too.
You said:
“On what basis do you claim I’m not being honest? I’ve yet to have anyone reasonably refute my claims about the Bible………”
Thus the need for our discussion. So this is what I will do for you. Why not have a private Zoom discussion that we both can record? We can take one topic at a time and stick to it. Can’t hurt can it? I am currently reviewing all of your videos so that I can catch up on your views. So that should give y
You asked:
“Despite your rancorous words here, on the Truth Wanted show you were quite reasonable and friendly, and even said you thought I’m a “nice and intelligent guy who genuinely wants to get at the truth.” Thank you, I appreciate that, but your positions are contradictory. Which version of your assessment of me is the tone you honestly hold?”
Both actually. Just as you seem to have two versions of how you approach this. Or are you claiming that your conduct on Thinking to believe is the same as how you were on Truth Wanted? I try to rise to the occasion, I can be quite friendly and reasonable when the situation calls for it. And I can be tough when necessary. Since you know I can be friendly even while disagreeing there is no reason not to trust our private dialogue. We both just might learn something.
You said:
“As you can see, you’ve made a lot of mischaracterizations about me, but my point here is not to harangue you for making mistakes. I just want to point out that you’ve made a lot of unwarranted assumptions about me that could have been avoided by simply asking. And that should be a clue that I’ve done my homework, and so refuting my arguments won’t be the cakewalk you think it will be.”
I disagree, I think I fairly pegged both of your personalities, and I still think that proving you wrong will not be a difficult thing to do. Soooooo lets tangle.
LikeLike
June 7, 2023 at 10:10 am
As usual, time is tight for me, but I’ll try to give a complete and concise response:
“So even in this you refuse to be honest. Are you saying that because you provided what you ‘THINK” is evidence, you’re referring to God as “Evil” is not calling Him names but “a descriptive label?”
First, of course that is what I “think” is evidence. What would you prefer, something I “feel” is evidence?
Second, evil is reasonably easy to define for most people: behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. If you have a different definition, it’s fine to present it. Defining terms is critical to avoid talking past each other.
Third, I suspect you wouldn’t have a problem with me labeling Hitler as evil, specifically because his behavior fell under the above definition for evil.
“You slyly went from my statement about you calling God names, to ad hominem, I did not say you used an ad hominem when you called God names.”
That’s why I tried to make the distinction clear. If I were to call God names in place of an argument, it would be an ad hominem. I didn’t do that. In fact, I didn’t call him names at all. I called him evil because that is the term used for people who deliberately and unnecessarily commit evil acts. It’s no different than if I were to call you an apologist based on your attempts to defend God’s behavior. I suspect you wouldn’t call that name-calling. You’ve accused me of being a “Richard Dawkins zealot,” which is an unjustified and false label. You’ve also labeled me an “atheist Zealot activist,” which is actually a reasonably accurate description (assuming that by “zealot” you mean “enthusiast”). My labeling the god of the Bible as evil is likewise an accurate description. So not name-calling but a concise descriptor based on behavior. Scalia referring to me as a “liar” based on his perception of my behavior would similarly be warranted (even if it’s not true). But calling me “dingbat” is clearly just childish name-calling, which is why I’ve lost all respect for him. And using that in place of a cogent argument is an ad hominem.
“That’s funny, you clearly understand the foolish mistake that Atheists of the past had made by arguing that God did not exist.”
On the contrary. There have always been atheists who claim God does not exist, as well as those who merely don’t believe God exists. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. Period. There are those who take it further and say gods do not exist, but I’m not the boss of them. There are no other rules in atheism other than a lack of belief in gods.
But atheists who are atheists for philosophical reasons (rather than those who just don’t believe because they just don’t care about the topic—apatheists, if you will) tend to be more nuanced than that. For instance, it’s justified to actively believe that gods for whom testable claims are made, but who fail those tests, do not exist. I would say I believe the God of the Bible definitely does not exist AS DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE (because of his behavior being contradictory to the claims made about him being good), but that only assumes treating the Bible as literally true. If one accepts that the Bible was written by fallible humans and both intentionally and unintentionally modified through translation and transcription, then any contradictions can be easily dismissed, and I would thus not be justified to claim definitively that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.
“And you think that saying that you “don’t believe any God exists” exempts you from a knowledge claim. Interesting.”
Of course it does. Think about it. The “a” in word means: “without.” Theism refers to belief the existence of gods. Thus, atheism means “without belief in the existence of gods.” Gnosticism, OTOH, refers to claims of knowledge. Thus agnosticism means “without claims of knowledge” (in this context, referring to gods).
So theism means a belief in gods, and atheism means lacking a belief in gods. Gnosticism is a claim of knowledge of gods, and agnosticism is lacking a claim of knowledge of gods. Thus, a gnostic theist believes in gods and CLAIMS they exist; an agnostic theist believes in gods but does NOT CLAIM to know which, if any, exist; a gnostic atheist does NOT believe in gods and CLAIMS to know they don’t exist; and an agnostic atheist does NOT believe in gods but does NOT CLAIM to know they don’t exist. Thus, “I believe God DOES NOT exist” would be an accurate statement for a gnostic atheist to make, whereas “I DO NOT BELIEVE God exists” would be a more accurate statement for an agnostic atheist. See the difference? In my experience, the great majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, since that is the most rational position.
If this still isn’t clear, here’s an analogy: You see me scoop up a cupful of sand, and I then declare that there is an even number of grains of sand in the cup, would you accept my belief as true? You shouldn’t, because I never even counted the grains. But that DOESN’T mean you are claiming there is an ODD number of grains of sand in the cup, does it? I just made a belief claim you have reason to believe I can’t realistically make, so you are “atheistic” in regards to my belief (you don’t believe me), but you are “agnostic” in regards to whether the actual number of grains is odd or even (you don’t claim to know).
“I did not see your “Why I make videos against God” only “My youtube channel” but that was clear enough.
Another interesting claim by you. You spend much time trying to discredit God, Christianity and the Bible on your site, but you say that your arguments have nothing to do with God, the Bible or Christianity. You then claim that your issue is with “Christians attempting to impose their religious beliefs on society, especially the undermining of science”.”
Had you viewed the video, you would know that my intro video is not enough. Here, I’ll risk administrative interception by posting the link here: https://youtu.be/YXPbIsxRCmc. That will clear up a lot of your misconceptions.
“And as for undermining science, we can deal with that accusation in our discussion and see which of us are actually ‘undermining” Science.”
I’m sorry, but you don’t stand a chance on that one. Besides my degree in evolution science, I did some graduate work in science philosophy, and I can easily explain why creationism and “intelligent design” have utterly failed in the scientific arena—as well as make it clear why over 99% of all biologists, paleontologists, geologists, geneticists, etc. accept evolutionary theory and reject creationism.
“And while you claim that you are not a fan of Dawkins, or a student of other top atheist, I respectfully cannot believe that. While I understand your apparent need to give the impression that your arguments are original because you are such a great thinker and have studied the Bible so well that you came to your horrible conclusions all on your own, I simply don’t buy it.”
Well, that is your problem, isn’t it? Again, watch the above video and it should make things clearer for you.
“But really it does not matter, the only thing that matters is that you are very wrong on so much of what you pride yourself of having studied and obtained a degree in that helped you arrive at your current view of God, the Bible and Christianity.”
In over 40 years, I’ve yet to have anyone successfully refute my claims. But maybe you’ll be the first. I’m happy to have you try.
One point of clarification, though: My degree had nothing at all to do with me arriving at my current view on God, etc. I pursued my degree in part BECAUSE I noticed problems with religious views on evolution but lacked sufficient understanding on the topic well enough to debate it.
““Often”? But you only list one. Why? What there of your arguments are original?”
I meant that IF you watch my videos, you’ll see a number of new and alternate perspectives. That’s because I originally developed these ideas without awareness of some of the more common arguments that I didn’t read about until much later.
“Here again, you as other evolutionists atheist, try to create your own barriers to avoid the truth.”
What in the world are you talking about? As I pointed out on the show, evolution and atheism have nothing in common. It’s only biblical literalists who have a problem with evolution. While it’s true most atheists accept evolutionary theory, so do most Christians (hundreds of millions of them, perhaps even billions). They don’t have a problem with it because biblical literalism contradicts the scientific evidence.
And, as I also pointed out, some of the scientists who accept evolutionary theory and have also contributed greatly to the field are Christians. I mentioned Francis Collins, who heads the NIH and was the director of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. And Robert Bakker, who is one of the world’s most famous and productive paleontologists, is also a Pentecostal PREACHER. I’ll also add Kenneth Miller, who was the lead plaintiff witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case against intelligent design, and who is a Roman Catholic.
It’s also worth noting that one of the reasons ID failed so badly in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is that one of the ID arguments is that evolutionary theory is an atheistic philosophy…but the ENTIRE scientific legal defense consisted of Christians.
No, evolution is only a problem for a relatively small segment of biblical literalists.
“No, I was not inaccurate, Atheism I never equated with evolution, but I did say that Atheism must rely on Evolution.”
If you didn’t equate atheism with evolution, then I apologize for making that mistake. But it IS a common creationist claim.
But you are wrong about atheism relying on evolution. I don’t know how many times I must point this out, but ATHEISM IS NOTHING MORE THAN A LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS. I encounter the occasional atheist who doesn’t accept abiogenesis or evolution for a variety of unsupported reasons—the most extreme being those who believe in the simulated universe idea (where everything in the world could have been created just five minutes ago, memories and apparent history intact). There’s no credible evidence for this, but the point is that atheism does NOT depend on evolution.
Having said that, the vast majority of atheists DO accept evolutionary theory simply because the evidence for it is overwhelming. We observe it in the fossil record, genetic record, comparative anatomy, currently occurring in nature, and we’ve even documented it step-by-step in the lab. Every testable prediction made by evolutionary theory that could have proven it false has failed to do so, with the supportive evidence only growing stronger with each new piece of evidence.
But the reason virtually all atheists do not believe in gods has nothing to do with evolution, but instead the lack of evidence for not just your god, but any gods. It’s as simple as that. The more one studies the history of Christianity and its claims, the more likely someone is to become an atheist. I have several good friends and acquaintances who were former pastors or who were studying to enter the seminary, only to realize the actual history of Christianity is very different from what the vast majority of Christians learn, and they found they no longer believed. A good friend of mine was a pastor for 30 YEARS before realizing he could no longer believe that mess. There’s even a support organization for many hundreds of US clergy who no longer believe (look up The Clergy Project).
“Without Evolution, Atheism is even more irrational than it is with evolution.”
Oh this should be interesting. How is atheism in any way irrational? Or do you have some credible evidence for the existence of your God that somehow atheists everywhere are unaware of?
“LAgain, I did not “equate” atheism with abiogenesis, I said that Atheist instantly revert to the subject of abiogenesis whenever the biogenesis is brought up. As for calling it a law, I won’t quibble over the term, principle, theory, rule, whatever you call it, it is an established observation and you know it.”
You misunderstand what the “law of biogenesis” means. It was originally used to prove spontaneous generation false, by demonstrating that living forms only come from other living forms IN THE CURRENT WORLD. Maggots don’t spontaneously generate from rotting meat, for example. Biogenesis has NOTHING to do with how the FIRST life formed. Similarly, evolutionary theory has NOTHING to do with how the first life formed. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis for how life originally formed. The evidence for this is highly compelling, and we have worked out how all the steps up to RNA, DNA, proteins and cell wall structures could have evolved naturally from basic chemistry, but a full pathway to life as we know it remains to be demonstrated. What we do not have is any credible evidence to suggest that a supernatural designer had anything to do with the process.
“Why not have a private Zoom discussion that we both can record? We can take one topic at a time and stick to it. Can’t hurt can it? I am currently reviewing all of your videos so that I can catch up on your views. So that should give y”
As I said, I’m all for it. We just need to figure out a time that works for both of us. I live in Germany, which is nine hours ahead of the US west coast, so make some proposal dates and times.
OK, I’m out of time, and I failed to keep this anywhere near as concise as I wanted, but that is par for the course, unfortunately.
LikeLike
June 7, 2023 at 2:31 pm
I’m just seeing this reply so I will read and respond soon. Also
Derek, it would be better if you gave me a few dates and time since you are busy and know your schedule best. But let it be in August or after so that I have time to finish devouring your videos.
LikeLike
June 7, 2023 at 3:52 pm
After Reading your reply, I can see that our dialogue is going to be very interesting. I am amazed at your level of confidence in your understanding about evolution, Christians who believe in evolution, and your confidence that you are making perfect sense and have nothing to fear from Creationism, the Bible or God when it come to evidence, truth or science. I am concerned that with all of the vast amounts of information available to us, that you still hold to your confidence and are willing to dialogue about it as if we do not have an intellectual leg to stand on. Either I am sadly deluded or you are. I can say this, from your comments here and the videos that I have already watched of yours. I have found many places that you show no interest in being accurate, honest or even fair. And it makes me wonder if you are evil, or just ill informed because of the sources that you trust. We shall see.
LikeLike
June 7, 2023 at 4:45 pm
Dingbat writes,
I call Derek a liar because he is DEMONSTRABLY so. I didn’t make an empty claim; I provided the proof multiple times. Indeed, if one wants to examine something relatively brief, read the Roe thread for unmistakable proof of Derek’s mendacity. He is a baldfaced liar.
Moreover, the word dingbat means:
Slang. an eccentric, silly, or empty-headed person.
All of these terms accurately describe Derek. He is eccentric (deviates from customary practice) by denying errors when explicit proof is produced (normal, honorable people acknowledge their errors), and is erratic by arguing against the very points he is making in the same thread! Moreover, he is silly (absurd, irrational) in committing obvious fallacies and continuing to use them when they’re pointed out and by producing arguments against material he hasn’t even read. Finally, he is empty-headed (lacking intelligence, foolish) by claiming to know what Christians believe without even attempting to discover what they believe (e.g., claiming that Christians make up what goodness is and arbitrarily ascribing goodness to God). My claim is thus not empty but demonstrably true.
Now, Derek may get his panties tied in a wad over the truth, but anybody who’s paid attention to his so-called debates understands what he’s about. Derek is a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with insults (name-calling) if they are warranted. An ad hominem insult is not fallacious because no argument is being made. And if a party has proved that arguing with him is useless, then he deserves to be insulted. Good-faith arguments are reserved for people who argue in good faith. Derek doesn’t argue in good faith, so Derek doesn’t merit an argument.
LikeLike
June 7, 2023 at 4:53 pm
@Preacherteacher, with respect to evolution, in my estimation, that is beside the point. None of the arguments that major theists employ for the existence of God entail a denial of evolution. That’s a separate issue.
But if Derek is so confident in his evidence against intelligent design, then why doesn’t he seek a debate with Stephen Meyer? If his arguments don’t piggyback on other atheists, why doesn’t he test his sword against somebody who can competently debate the matter? Can’t his Hollywood Squares for Atheists invite Meyer for a guest appearance? Note, I am not an advocate of intelligent design (ID). I think IDers’ metaphysics are faulty, but that’s another story.
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 8:40 am
“it would be better if you gave me a few dates and time since you are busy and know your schedule best. But let it be in August or after so that I have time to finish devouring your videos.”
All right. I’ll be busy early in the first half of August, but otherwise pretty much any day of the week between 6 a.m. and 11 a.m. EST work for me.
“I am amazed at your level of confidence in your understanding about evolution, Christians who believe in evolution, and your confidence that you are making perfect sense and have nothing to fear from Creationism, the Bible or God when it come to evidence, truth or science.”
Why would I have anything to fear when I’ve studied all of those topics directly from the source? It’s been my experience that the vast majority of creationists learn a twisted version of evolution from pastors or the major creationist sites—like AiG, CMI, CRS, ICR or DI—rather than from experts who devote their lives to studying the science and the evidence. And nearly everyone who actually studies the science itself ends up becoming a “theistic evolutionist” or an atheist. So yes, I’m confident, in much the same way a medical doctor would be confident if a witch doctor claimed syphilis can only be cured by prayer.
And just in case you think I’m bluffing, I’m willing to put a wager on this. Provide even ONE example of a testable prediction made by evolutionary theory that has proven the theory false, and provide even ONE testable prediction made by creationism that could potentially prove creationism false (of course, no fair using any claims that have *already* proven creationism false). If you can successfully fulfill both conditions of the bet, then clearly evolutionary theory is false and creationism is at least scientifically credible, and I will send you $1,000.
However, if you are unable to fulfill the conditions of the bet, then you will have failed to demonstrate that evolutionary theory is false and that creationism is scientific. You will then send me $1,000. (More importantly to me, you should come to understand why evolutionary theory has not been falsified, and you should also come to understand why creationism doesn’t even qualify as a credible hypothesis, much less a theory.)
Just to be clear, this isn’t a trick, it’s just exactly what science requires. You can’t claim that an explanation is scientific if it doesn’t meet the basic requirements of the scientific method. Fair enough? Just please let me know that you accept my bet before you present your evidence.
“I am concerned that with all of the vast amounts of information available to us, that you still hold to your confidence and are willing to dialogue about it as if we do not have an intellectual leg to stand on. Either I am sadly deluded or you are.”
Of the two of us, which one has studied evolutionary theory in college, science philosophy in grad school, the Bible from Christians and creationism from creationists? If you get your science information from sources that admit in their own statements of faith that they will accept no evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, what do you think the odds are that you have an accurate understanding of the science?
“We shall see.”
Indeed we shall.
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 1:05 pm
Scalia:
“with respect to evolution, in my estimation, that is beside the point. None of the arguments that major theists employ for the existence of God entail a denial of evolution. That’s a separate issue.”
True, but that depends of how evolution is defined. Evolution simply means “change over time” and no one denies that. But many, most define evolution in Darwinian terms. Molecules to man ideas. That is indeed denied by any competent Theist.
“But if Derek is so confident in his evidence against intelligent design, then why doesn’t he seek a debate with Stephen Meyer?”
I am sure that Derek does not rate a debate with Steven Meyer. Derek is still trying to reach that level, which is partly why I believe he is doing all he can to get attention from the atheist bigshots. But, he does not have to have Steven’s attention to test his mustard. If he can’t refute me, why assume he merits a shot at the higher experts? I have interviewed Steven Meyer, I love his work. I also understand ID and its value and necessity as a method of confronting atheist scientists who champion evolution.
When you say IDers’ Metaphysics are faulty, I would like to hear your complaint on that, since not all Iders are on the same page.
Perhaps we can talk via email or phone sometime. Not here, private is better.
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 1:22 pm
@Preacherteacher,
I agree that Derek isn’t in Meyer’s league. The only point I was trying to make by bringing him up is that Derek’s repository of “debates” is conspicuously void of any interaction with known Christian apologists. YouTube has quite an array of Christian philosophers and ID proponents, so it wouldn’t be difficult to debate one of them if he were sincere about testing his mettle against the best arguments. As I mentioned above, Derek’s Achilles’ Heel is his woefully hollow philosophical database. Regardless one’s education, a person’s underlying worldview affects the way he or she sifts facts, and since Derek is a dingbat when it comes to philosophy, he will always belly-flop against educated opponents.
With respect to ID metaphysics, I’m happy to discuss the matter privately. So, email Jason and ask him for my email address. You may tell him that I consent to his sharing it with you. Indeed, I’ll let him know that he can share it. Briefly, one of the main divides between the ID community and classical theism is the issue of imposed and inherent teleology. IDers tend to be in the former camp while classical theists are entirely in the latter. It is our contention that defending imposed teleology is ultimately self-undermining.
All the best…
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 1:23 pm
Derek:
“All right. I’ll be busy early in the first half of August, but otherwise pretty much any day of the week between 6 a.m. and 11 a.m. EST work for me.”
That’s real early for me but it would be worth it. Ok on the time.
“Why would I have anything to fear when I’ve studied all of those topics directly from the source?….”
First, I said nothing about fear, you have common atheist tendency of adding or twisting what we say. Your accusation that the “vast majority of creationists learn a twisted version of evolution will have to be defended. It has been my experience that you atheist are the twisters, and then you foolishly insist that we creationists accept your twisted definitions and claims as true, my question is, what makes your reinterpretations of words ideas and concepts legitimate?
Why do you have such blind faith in those you call “experts who devoted their lives to studying the science and the evidence”? And your analysis of a Medical doctor to a witch doctor is hardly any comparison between Creationist scientists and atheist evolutionist scientists. But your comparison does indeed reveal your level of blind arrogance, or sad delusion.
“And just in case you think I’m bluffing, I’m willing to put a wager on this….”
You are still trying to have our debate here, and I am not going to do so. Your offer is not reasonable since you employ a tactic in your reasoning and arguing that is not integral. That too will be demonstrated in our dialogue. I will hold on to your offer and we can discuss its merits when we talk. However, I will not accept any money from you.
“Just to be clear, this isn’t a trick, it’s just exactly what science requires. You can’t claim that an explanation is scientific if it doesn’t meet the basic requirements of the scientific method. Fair enough?…..”
In our dialogue, I will demonstrate your error or deception on this issue too.
“Of the two of us, which one has studied evolutionary theory in college, science philosophy in grad school, the Bible from Christians and creationism from creationists? If you get your science information from sources that admit in their own statements of faith that they will accept no evidence that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, what do you think the odds are that you have an accurate understanding of the science?”
Again, you show your unfounded confidence what you have learned I College, I have bested many such people in discussions in the past. From what you have already published and posted here, I know that you are not accurate or reliable in your representation of others, and that it is clear that you are confident that your misrepresentation cannot be refuted. Soooo. As you said…
“Indeed we shall” see.
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 1:37 pm
Preacher teacher writes:
Yes, you pegged that correctly. As I noted above, he came here some 11 years ago with what he thought was a zinger argument against the KCA. His argument contained a very obvious fallacy, but when I pointed it out, he fought tooth-and-nail to deny it (thus demonstrating his lack of integrity). His mindset can admit no argumentative error. He will do the same when you debate him as I’m certain you’re already aware. 🙂
LikeLike
June 13, 2023 at 2:48 pm
“He will do the same when you debate him as I’m certain you’re already aware.”
You are correct Scalia, I do not expect Derek to be honest and up front about his errors and false arguments. But I have to document them and at least point them out to him, and then demonstrate how he handles such refutations and exposures.
There is so much misrepresentation and falsehoods in his videos that I am like a kid in a candy store when watching them. But what is sad is that he thinks he is being brilliant about it all. And his encounters with “Christians” who were not up to defending their views has clearly made him feel intellectually indestructible. Such people are not easy to get through to. I don’t expect to convert him, his heart is to heard and he is too proud for that, at least at this time, but for me, much usefulness will come out of our dialogue. If it ever takes place.
LikeLike
June 18, 2023 at 6:34 pm
With the exception of safe spaces for women I don’t understand why there is such a conversation about transgender.
Someone who looks masculine walls down the street wearing a dress… so what.
Someone who looks feminine walks down the street wear a ‘typical’ man’s suit… so what.
I buy my daughters clothes from the boys section all the time because they like Spider-Man and for some reason shops put t shirts with Spider-Man in the boys section and t shirts with my little pony in the girls section. They’re not trans. They just like Marvel and someone has decided to split it by gender.
I have name that can be shortened, i like it when people ask me how I want to be called (William, Will, Bob) how is that different to someone saying, do you mind calling me ‘she’ rather than ’he’? I won’t get offended if you call be William when I prefer Will and I am sure that as long as you’re not trying to be hurtful people don’t mind when you get pronouns wrong.
I used to judge people all the time, on their hair, their clothes, there job etc but as I’ve got older I’ve found I need to be me and understand that other people need to be true to themselves to.
My mental health has got better since I’ve been able to stop second guessing what others think of me and just be who I want to be.
I assume that this is true of everyone else. And as long as they are doing no one else harm I am completely fine letting them, and indeed supporting them to be the best version of themselves.
So back to safe spaces. This is an important issue. And the issue is actually to do with men.
Until my wife told me I never knew that she didn’t like going out alone after dark, always worried about how quickly she can get to her car keys in a car park, how she walks along the street with her phone in her hand just in case she needs to make an emergency call.
All because she is worried about men. Men either physically or mentally abusing her.
If there is any gender related issue that we need to fix it is this. The thought that women need to spend time and energy thinking about men’s behaviour is terrible.
So we need to create safe private spaces and actually, make all spaces safe. And I’ve come to learn that it is completely men’s responsibility to do that. We have 100s off years of mistakes to make up for.
LikeLike
June 19, 2023 at 5:42 am
“But many, most define evolution in Darwinian terms. Molecules to man ideas. That is indeed denied by any competent Theist.”
Considering that the vast majority of theists accept evolution, especially those with scientific training, I wouldn’t be so quick to make your claim. Biblical literalism is a (relatively) new phenomenon that is also largely American; most early Christians did not assume the Bible was meant to be taken literally. And the more people are exposed to the evidence for evolution, the more they understand why it’s accepted by virtually the entire biology community.
“I am sure that Derek does not rate a debate with Steven Meyer. Derek is still trying to reach that level, which is partly why I believe he is doing all he can to get attention from the atheist bigshots.”
First off, why would any ID big shot be interested in debating a largely unknown atheist with a YouTube site? Second, have you noticed that almost no scientists debate creationists/ID proponents? That’s because science is determined by evidence presented through relevant publications, not by verbal debate with discredited pseudoscientists. Third, it’s actually trivially easy to prove that ID isn’t scientific, and I could prove Meyer wrong in about a minute. Perhaps it’s something I should leave for our debate, but I’ll walk you through it here anyway:
As you should already know, every scientific explanation starts by developing and testing a hypothesis using these six basic steps of the scientific method:
1. Make an observation
2. Propose an explanation
3. Construct a hypothesis with testable predictions
4. Test your hypothesis by doing experiments
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
6. Communicate your findings to others
If you want to test whether an intelligent designer created life, there’s nothing wrong with that, but to construct a hypothesis you have to provide some way to potentially prove your explanation false. This is called falsification, which is the basis of the scientific method. Without it, you’re not doing science and you don’t have a hypothesis. The problem with ID is that it provides no testable predictions for falsification. Let me illustrate how clear this is:
ID proponent: “I have observed that biological processes resemble how our factories work, and DNA resembles how computers work.”
Scientist: “OK, that’s your observation. So what is the explanation you would like to propose?”
ID proponent: “Well, because we create factories and computers, and we are intelligent designers, perhaps life is also intelligently designed.”
Scientist: “Great, so what testable predictions can you make that could potentially prove that explanation false?”
ID proponent: (crickets)
And that’s where it ends. Some ID proponents have tried claiming that if they can find an example of something being “irreducibly complex,” that would be evidence supporting ID. But since NOT finding anything that’s irreducibly complex wouldn’t disprove the explanation—after all, it could be that we just haven’t found an example yet—it’s not a falsifiable explanation.
Worse, there is no way to determine whether something even is irreducibly complex. Every proposed example that ID proponents have given so far—bacterial flagella, complex eyes, hearts, brains, etc.—has turned out to have a plausible naturalistic explanation. But even if we didn’t have any such explanations, there would be no way to know whether explanations exist that we simply haven’t discovered yet.
Do you see the problem? Again, if you can’t provide any testable predictions that could potentially prove your explanation false, you don’t have a hypothesis. Intelligent design can’t be falsified, so it fails to meet even the minimum requirement for a scientific explanation. For that reason it doesn’t qualify as a hypothesis, and certainly doesn’t qualify as a theory. Intelligent design is not scientific explanation for anything. Period.
I could go into much more detail, like how during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover ID was proven to be nothing more than a rebranding of creationism, which was already demonstrated to be religion, not science. And I could detail how even Michael Behe—the star witness and poster child for ID—resorted to REDEFINING the scientific method because he knew ID doesn’t meet even the basic standard for a scientific explanation. But the above explanation should be easy enough to understand.
“There is so much misrepresentation and falsehoods in his videos that I am like a kid in a candy store when watching them.”
Oh really? You talk a big game, but I challenge you to name even ONE claim I make that I cannot support with credible evidence.
“Your accusation that the “vast majority of creationists learn a twisted version of evolution will have to be defended. It has been my experience that you atheist are the twisters, and then you foolishly insist that we creationists accept your twisted definitions and claims as true, my question is, what makes your reinterpretations of words ideas and concepts legitimate?”
Here’s a simple example: microevolution and macroevolution have long had clear definitions in biology. The former is evolutionary change within a species; the latter is evolutionary change at or beyond the species level, which involves the splitting of a species into two clades. Both have been observed occurring in nature, through breeding and in the lab.
Creationists redefined the word macroevolution to refer to a change in “kinds,” which they originally used to be a synonym for species, and which they claimed has never been observed. They actually claimed some undefined “barrier” exists that prevents genetic change from occurring beyond the species level.
But after researchers demonstrated numerous examples of speciation events occurring, creationists moved the goalposts by redefining “kind” to higher taxonomic levels so that they could continue to claim macroevolution has never been observed, even though it clearly has. They often still claim that some genetic barrier prevents evolution into a different “kind.”
That’s just one example of what I mean by creationists learning a “twisted” form of evolution. I could go on detailing the fossil, genetic and homology evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts the creationist narrative—and I will if you request more.
“Why do you have such blind faith in those you call “experts who devoted their lives to studying the science and the evidence”?”
I get that you would think in terms of belief through faith, since that is what religion requires and so you might naturally assume the same is true in science. But in science there is no blind faith involved—in fact, faith and individual bias are minimized as much as possible.
I’ve actually studied much of the evidence for evolution firsthand because that is what is required for any science degree. Even in high school classes one is required to conduct some basic experiments, and at the university level that is ramped up considerably. You don’t just “believe” what you’re told, you’re expected to work with the evidence and determine conclusions yourself using the scientific method. In short, you’re not taught what to think, you’re taught HOW to think.
And probably the most important lesson anyone conducting science learns is that every experiment is an attempt to prove one’s own claim FALSE. That’s because no explanation can EVER be proven true; we can only eliminate explanations that don’t comport with the evidence. Reasonable certainty comes only through repeated failed attempts to disprove the testable predictions, which are instead supported by the evidence. That’s the opposite to how most people think, but that’s why they are so susceptible to confirmation bias and poor evidence.
“And your analysis of a Medical doctor to a witch doctor is hardly any comparison between Creationist scientists and atheist evolutionist scientists.”
That’s because you are a witch doctor. 😉
“You are still trying to have our debate here, and I am not going to do so. Your offer is not reasonable since you employ a tactic in your reasoning and arguing that is not integral.”
Of course I knew you wouldn’t take me up on my bet. Every creationist who has has lost, though most refuse to even take the bet (usually making some vague nonsense claim like “you employ a tactic in your reasoning and arguing that is not integral” 😉 ). Why is that? Some just think I’m trying to trap them with some sort of trick, but those who research the scientific method soon realize how it works and why creationism/ID fails to meet even its most basic requirements. Either way, I suspect on some level you realize I know what I’m talking about, or you would have taken my bet.
But my offer is completely reasonable, since it actually does get to the heart of the matter, which is that creationists like yourself are ill-informed by creationist websites that don’t base their claims on science, but on religious dogma and baseless attacks on evolutionary theory.
In any event, my offer remains open.
“However, I will not accept any money from you.”
I know. You would have to win the bet in order to collect. 🙂
“Again, you show your unfounded confidence what you have learned I College, I have bested many such people in discussions in the past. From what you have already published and posted here, I know that you are not accurate or reliable in your representation of others, and that it is clear that you are confident that your misrepresentation cannot be refuted.”
And I can make the exact same claim about you. Good luck!
LikeLike
June 19, 2023 at 11:10 am
ER (you’ll have to pardon my shortening of your moniker) writes,
Were it not for what you call the “safe spaces” issue, there wouldn’t be this “conversation” about transgenderism. It is precisely due to men’s intruding into women’s private areas and sports that we’re having this argument in western society. Moreover, this insistence that children be taught the demonstrably false notion that a male can be a female on the mere claim that it is so is partly why we’re having a conflict.
Were it only a matter of cross-dressing, nothing much would be said about it. Consenting adults have the legal right to dress and act how they want, and nobody on the Right has any interest in abridging that right. And individuals also have the right to call themselves anything they want, but they have no right to compel speech that others disagree with, especially speech that is factually false. You have no right to make me say what I don’t want to say. Call yourself a peacock and put a feather coat on for all I care, but don’t expect me to call you a bird. Live out any fantasy you please, but don’t think for a second that you’ll compel me to feed your fantasy. I’ve got rights too, and that’s something the woke crowd has apparently forgotten.
As I noted in Post 22:
Privacy was something that liberals used to believe in. Indeed, it was the cornerstone of their drive to legalize contraception, homosexuality and abortion. Gender-segregated restrooms/locker rooms were created not out of bigotry, but for the legitimate privacy concerns of men and women. Under the woke rationale, every pervert in the land should now have open access to areas they previously had to occupy surreptitiously. This carte blanch nullification of privacy is misguided root and branch. You don’t trash the privacy rights of millions to feed the delusions of the few (and to gratify the lusts of Peeping Toms).
This is something we’re not going to cave on. The woke position has even alienated traditional liberals. We are not going to call white black. We are not going to allow men to ruin women’s sports. And we are not going to allow our children to be taught that sex can change on a verbal claim. In this regard, George Orwell can be considered a secular prophet. If you haven’t read it, I highly recommend reading his book 1984 (or Nineteen Eighty-Four).
LikeLike
June 19, 2023 at 11:28 am
And Derek typically misrepresents ID arguments in Post 67. If he had bothered to actually inform himself of actual ID arguments, and if he had bothered to engage ID apologists (not just Meyer, but others who occupy the internet arena), he would know what they actually believe.
All this of course reflects Derek’s fundamental dishonesty. His ignorance of particular arguments is not in itself objectionable. We can’t know everything. Rather, it is his neglect of properly researching a matter before popping off about it that reveals his flawed character. One would think that a self-professed scientist would exercise care before offering opinions about matters of which he’s ignorant. But Derek’s agenda will admit no objectivity. His mission is to dismantle the faith of Christians, and that explains why he doesn’t conduct the requisite research to speak intelligently on critical matters. He’s not interested in the truth; he’s only interested in advancing his ego through his agenda. He offers opinions on the Constitution without having read it. He offers opinions on court decisions he hasn’t read. He offers opinions on theistic arguments he hasn’t researched, and when informed of his ignorance, he continues to assert that his objections apply to what he’s ignorant of. And he confidently asserts the theistic position of morality that is demonstrably discordant with the historical doctrine of the same. I have debated all these issues with principled liberals who’ve taken the time to research these matters. It’s not disagreement that bothers me; it’s the rank dishonesty that propels a person to speak with willful ignorance on matters. The kind of person who will manipulate facts in order to further his agenda is beneath contempt.
LikeLike
June 25, 2023 at 6:09 pm
• Erotic Ambition you said post #66:
“With the exception of safe spaces for women I don’t understand why there is such a conversation about transgender…..” etc.
Your comments make it clear to me that you are not paying attention to what is going on in our culture. You are approaching this dispute as if all things are normal and there are no agendas being pursued by special interest groups that are using education, politics, government, entertainment and the legal system to force an irrational, immoral and unnatural way of thinking, acting and relating on us. My question to you is why are you ignoring what is going on?
You said:
“I used to judge people all the time, on their hair, their clothes, there job etc but as I’ve got older I’ve found I need to be me and understand that other people need to be true to themselves to. My mental health has got better since I’ve been able to stop second guessing what others think of me and just be who I want to be. I assume that this is true of everyone else. And as long as they are doing no one else harm I am completely fine letting them, and indeed supporting them to be the best version of themselves.”
Your logic is flawed, while you seem to be trying to be kind and understanding, you are neglecting logic and rational. The issue is not being willing to allow people to be “true to themselves”, the issue is imposing unnatural and irrational requirements on others to accommodate unethical, immoral and harmful behavior. You seem to either be willing to ignore or ignorant about all that is involved with the homosexual agenda. That is perhaps due to your chosen source for news, and information. If you have not been exposed to news and sources that present the other side of this conflict, you are only being exposed to those who are promoting the homosexual agenda and those who support it. If so, naturally you will think you are being reasonable in your convictions. I would challenge you to spend some time reading and watching alternative sources of information on this topic. Here are a few suggestions.
Americans for truth about homosexuality, Mission America, American Family Association.
You said:
“So back to safe spaces… If there is any gender related issue that we need to fix it is this. The thought that women need to spend time and energy thinking about men’s behaviour is terrible. So we need to create safe private spaces and actually, make all spaces safe. And I’ve come to learn that it is completely men’s responsibility to do that.”
Once again you demonstrate that you are not approaching this matter fully. While I agree with your assessment concerning the protections of women, I question your apparent willingness to ignore the abuse of Children in this homosexual/trans matter. Just picking out women danger and ignoring children danger indicates you have been influenced by only one source of news and information on the matter.
LikeLike
June 25, 2023 at 6:19 pm
derekmathias to my comment:
“But many, most define evolution in Darwinian terms. Molecules to man ideas. That is indeed denied by any competent Theist.”
You replied at post #67:
“Considering that the vast majority of theists accept evolution, especially those with scientific training, I wouldn’t be so quick to make your claim.”
Theist who accept evolution come in a variety of types, that is why I insist that you and other like you, clearly define what you mean by “evolution”. Many theist who accept evolution refer only to small changes within kinds, not Darwinian evolution. Many others who have been influenced by false science teaching, believe in Darwinian evolution out if ignorance. I have talked with many and can tell you that many of them did not have a clue. There are also many scientists who reject Darwinian evolution privately, while going along with Darwinian evolution publicly, because of the tyranny against Darwin dissenters in academia and government. You keep touting theist who accept evolution as if there has been no confusion, and no massive deception of the public via media and the school system in both lower and higher education. But there is a reason other than the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution that explains why so many theist accept it.
Additionally, it does not matter how many believe in Darwinian evolution if it is wrong, it is wrong. You know full well that the majority has been wrong on many matters, so stating it means little to nothing.
Also, for someone who does not have time, you sure seem to have plenty of it to keep posting here. It is as if you have an agenda to do all you can to persuade those here, not to believe in God or the Bible. Very interesting.
You said:
“Biblical literalism is a (relatively) new phenomenon that is also largely American; most early Christians did not assume the Bible was meant to be taken literally. And the more people are exposed to the evidence for evolution, the more they understand why it’s accepted by virtually the entire biology community.”
What do you mean by “biblical literalism”? Your practice of using terns without defining them and mis-defining them when it suites your efforts is not helpful.
And on what do you base you claim that “biblical literalism is a new phenomenon that is largely American? I contend that biblical literalism, properly defined is not at all a new American phenomenon.
“Most Christians”, how do you know this? What “evidence of evolution” causes people to understand why it is accepted by “virtually the entire biology community”? Why don’t you present your evidence here since you keep claiming you have it? I argue that it is false evidence or non-evidence that is presented as evidence which is deceiving people to believe in Darwinian evolution.
You said:
“Second, have you noticed that almost no scientists debate creationists/ID proponents? That’s because science is determined by evidence presented through relevant publications, not by verbal debate with discredited pseudoscientists.”
You can’t be that ignorant to believe that evolutionist scientists are reluctant debate Creationist and ID proponents because evidence is determined by relevant publications. Nor can you be so arrogant as to assume that they avoid such public debates because Creationist and ID scientists are all discredited pseudoscientists. YOU KNOW, that many such debates have taken place and that evolutionist scientists have been embarrassed in so many of such debates, that they decided it was better to avoid such public thrashings and just us the excuse that they are not scientists or scientific, and therefore are not worth debating. Again, the reason is because evolutionists found out that engaging in such debates with competent ID/Creationists often resulted in embarrassment. It is easier for them to just claim that ID/ Creation science is not science at all, and that it is simply a waste of time to debate them and give them undue platforms and attention. What a useful escape method.
You said:
“Third, it’s actually trivially easy to prove that ID isn’t scientific, and I could prove Meyer wrong in about a minute. Perhaps it’s something I should leave for our debate, but I’ll walk you through it here anyway:
As you should already know, every scientific explanation starts by developing and testing a hypothesis using these six basic steps of the scientific method:
1. Make an observation
2. Propose an explanation
3. Construct a hypothesis with testable predictions
4. Test your hypothesis by doing experiments
5. Analyze your data and draw a conclusion
6. Communicate your findings to others”
Of your listed 6 steps, only step1 is generally properly and honestly done by atheist evolutionists.
Steps 2 thru 6 are where your games start and are heavily depended on, so we can debate that. But for the readers here, I state this to offset your grand standing and attempt to have the debate here on this forum. There is a reason why I prefer to have our dialogue in real time.
LikeLike
June 25, 2023 at 6:26 pm
derekmathias, continuing with my reply to your post #67
You said:
If you want to test whether an intelligent designer created life, there’s nothing wrong with that, but to construct a hypothesis you have to provide some way to potentially prove your explanation false. This is called falsification, which is the basis of the scientific method. Without it, you’re not doing science and you don’t have a hypothesis. The problem with ID is that it provides no testable predictions for falsification. Let me illustrate how clear this is:….”
Then you proceeded to present a strawman example.
Derrick, I can tell you now that if you ever tried to prove that ID is not scientific to Steven Meyers, he would eat you alive. First, neither he nor any thinking theist would argue that ID “was scientific”. That is an evolutionists and wrong thinking theist argument. Our argument is that ID can be scientifically demonstrated to be true. There is a difference in how you present the question and you know it.
Second, your sample is not the way a competent theist would argue the ID point. It is easy to create a straw man and then destroy it. Or use arguments from a poorly informed theist as if it was the best we had to offer, and then trash it. Let’s see how you do in real time.
Your sly methods are to stack the deck in your favor by how you present questions and how you define things. Our job is to expose it when you do it, and force you to give up the games and props that you all use to make Darwinian evolution look as feasible as possible.
You said:
“Some ID proponents have tried claiming that if they can find an example of something being “irreducibly complex,” that would be evidence supporting ID. But since NOT finding anything that’s irreducibly complex wouldn’t disprove the explanation—after all, it could be that we just haven’t found an example yet—it’s not a falsifiable explanation.”
This precisely why falsification is not the gold standard for determining whether something is scientifically demonstrable. It is a foolish rule that thinking scientists recognize as fault. Again, your standards will be challenged for their credibility when we talk.
You said:
“Worse, there is no way to determine whether something even is irreducibly complex. Every proposed example that ID proponents have given so far—bacterial flagella, complex eyes, hearts, brains, etc.—has turned out to have a plausible naturalistic explanation.”
Naturalistic explanations that are not reliable scientifically, but that are championed by evolutionists as great answers. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen, heard and read your side proclaiming you have answered or refuted what you have not. Making grandiose claims are not proof or evidence, or rationally scientific explanations. We will be dealing with that also in our dialogue too.
You said:
“But even if we didn’t have any such explanations, there would be no way to know whether explanations exist that we simply haven’t discovered yet.”
Indeed, and there you have your games, the truth is that even by your own faulty standard of falsifiability, evolution is not allowed to be falsified, your side just keeps coming up with rescuing devices. But we will discuss this in our talk too.
You said:
“Do you see the problem? Again, if you can’t provide any testable predictions that could potentially prove your explanation false, you don’t have a hypothesis. Intelligent design can’t be falsified, so it fails to meet even the minimum requirement for a scientific explanation. For that reason it doesn’t qualify as a hypothesis, and certainly doesn’t qualify as a theory. Intelligent design is not scientific explanation for anything. Period.”
Derrek, please define “hypothesis” and ‘Theory” for me.
Also, as I have said, your reliance on what you call “falsifiability” as a prerequisite for having a hypothesis, and Something being or having a scientific explanation, is foolish. Apparently, you did not get that memo in all of your studies as you earned your degree. Which by the way, is another thing you apparently need to taught. Having a degree does not mean that you are smart, know what you are talking about on any given topic, on have the ability to think rationally. While many do indeed worship at the throne of academia, it is well know that intelligence is best tested in real time application.
You said:
“I could go into much more detail, like how during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover ID was proven to be nothing more than a rebranding of creationism, which was already demonstrated to be religion, not science.”
The fact that you have several times referenced the Kitzmiller v Dover case as if it really proved something against ID is evidence that you are not even interested in truth about it. I honestly do not think you should use the Kitzmiller/ Dover case to prove anything. I am well versed on that case and you might find it embarrassing to use as a source or reference. But don’t take my warning, please feel free to bring it up in our discussion.
I will be happy to dismantle your Dover trial arguments.
You said:
“And I could detail how even Michael Behe—the star witness and poster child for ID—resorted to REDEFINING the scientific method because he knew ID doesn’t meet even the basic standard for a scientific explanation.”
While Michael Behe is not our best defender, even he as an old earth, Evolutionist, theist, has run rings around atheist scientists. The Dover case, again, is a pitiful case to rely on as proof of any kind for evolution against creation or ID. You accuse Behe of having to redefine the “science method” without explaining what makes “the scientific method” “THE” scientific method. Behe is a scientist and knows very well what constitutes science. You say he REDEFINED it, I say he pointed out why it is faulty as a standard for all evidence. We will have to debate that point. I hope you are ready for it.
LikeLike
June 25, 2023 at 6:32 pm
derekmathias, continuing with my reply to your post #67
You said:
“You talk a big game, but I challenge you to name even ONE claim I make that I cannot support with credible evidence.”
Oh no you don’t, you want me to reveal all of my arsenal here so you will be better prepared for our real time dialogue. Not going to happen. You have went out of your way to trash the Biblical God, Christianity and the Bible, so now you are going to have to face your incompetence in real time.
You said:
“Here’s a simple example: microevolution and macroevolution have long had clear definitions in biology…. Creationists redefined the word macroevolution to refer to a change in “kinds,” which they originally used to be a synonym for species, and which they claimed has never been observed…”
This is interesting, you accuse Creationists of redefining words to save their view, but you have yet to acknowledge how often evolutionists have and does this very thing. I see a double standard here. I also would like to point out just how loose and free you are with repeating what atheist evolutionists accuse Creationists of while not bothering to examine how reliable your sources are on the issue. Words having a long and clear definition has never stopped evolutionist atheist from “redefining” them. What did “theory” only mean before atheist evolutionist hijacked it? What did “evolution” mean before it was hijacked? What was the original meaning of “species” before atheist evolutionists started tweaking it to support evolution updates? Do you really want to go there? Sooooo, we can also discuss the accuracy of your accusations about what Creationists have flip flopped on, and compare it to evolutionists.
You said:
“They actually claimed some undefined “barrier” exists that prevents genetic change from occurring beyond the species level.”
That is a dishonest statement and you know it. “Undefined Barrier”, what Creationist material are you really relying on? There are clearly defined barriers pointed out in their articles and books. And I will provide some in our real time discussion. But I really am curious as to why keep making so many false claims here that can easily be refuted. Is it arrogance or ignorance. I can’t wait to find out, the suspense is really getting to me.
You said:
“But after researchers demonstrated numerous examples of speciation events occurring, creationists moved the goalposts by redefining “kind” to higher taxonomic levels so that they could continue to claim macroevolution has never been observed, even though it clearly has.”
What Creationists are you referring to that denied speciation? Creationists from the 17 and 1800’s? Is that how you are going to discredit Creationist? What reputable Creationists denied Speciation, please tell me.
You said:
“They often still claim that some genetic barrier prevents evolution into a different “kind.” That’s just one example of what I mean by creationists learning a “twisted” form of evolution.”
Claim? It is a fact, but to avoid facing how that fact debunks evolution, you just say that “evolution” does not work like that. Your side constantly moves the goalpost and has the nerve to accuse Creationist of doing so.
You said:
“I could go on detailing the fossil, genetic and homology evidence that overwhelmingly contradicts the creationist narrative—and I will if you request more.”
No, No, please don’t do it here. PLEASE wait until we have our real time discussion.
I asked:
“Why do you have such blind faith in those you call “experts who devoted their lives to studying the science and the evidence”?”
You replied:
“I get that you would think in terms of belief through faith, since that is what religion requires and so you might naturally assume the same is true in science. But in science there is no blind faith involved—in fact, faith and individual bias are minimized as much as possible.”
Derrek, you are truly deceived if you think there is no blind faith involved in science. And while it is claimed that faith and bias are minimized, the truth is that faith and bias is wide spread science academia. I will be happy to provide examples for you in our discussion.
LikeLike
June 25, 2023 at 6:36 pm
derekmathias, concluding with my reply to your post #67
You said:
“I’ve actually studied much of the evidence for evolution firsthand because that is what is required for any science degree. Even in high school classes one is required to conduct some basic experiments, and at the university level that is ramped up considerably. You don’t just “believe” what you’re told, you’re expected to work with the evidence and determine conclusions yourself using the scientific method. In short, you’re not taught what to think, you’re taught HOW to think.”
Then you should have no trouble at all educating me on the “evidence”, or refuting my arguments. I have talked with many science teacher on the college level who hold your views, and I have debated a few, so I am neither impressed nor concerned by your degree. And I will prove that you are indeed taught “what” to think and not how.
You said:
“And probably the most important lesson anyone conducting science learns is that every experiment is an attempt to prove one’s own claim FALSE. That’s because no explanation can EVER be proven true; we can only eliminate explanations that don’t comport with the evidence. Reasonable certainty comes only through repeated failed attempts to disprove the testable predictions, which are instead supported by the evidence. That’s the opposite to how most people think, but that’s why they are so susceptible to confirmation bias and poor evidence.”
I am intrigued by your uncontrollable need to demonstrate here and now, how much you know about the scientific method and science. Where do you get the time to do so when you don’t have time for a real time dialogue? We will discuss your error on this when we dialogue in real time.
You said:
“…I suspect on some level you realize I know what I’m talking about, or you would have taken my bet….”
No Derrek, I did not take your bet because I am not interested in fake challenges that you would never concede to losing. Evolutionists have a massive history of denying their lies, errors and refutations of their arguments. Since you will not admit defeat, we have to have a record for others to decide. Also, while I certainly could use the money, I have no “faith” in your integrity.
You said:
“But my offer is completely reasonable, since it actually does get to the heart of the matter, which is that creationists like yourself are ill-informed by creationist websites that don’t base their claims on science, but on religious dogma and baseless attacks on evolutionary theory.”
Your statement demonstrates why I would not bother taking a bet from you on such matters, you will not be honest, you will not willingly accurately represent our best arguments, and you pretend that you are sincere and proclaiming truth. “Creationists websites that don’t base their claims on science?” For you to be able to state such a blatant lie, makes it clear to me that you are either horribly arrogant, or sadly ignorant and don’t know it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
June 27, 2023 at 2:44 pm
Preacherteacher writes:
This hits the nail on the head. Either Derek knows what the best arguments are and is deliberately hiding them, or he hasn’t a clue what the best arguments are and is once again showing his incompetence.
LikeLike
July 6, 2023 at 5:41 am
“You are approaching this dispute as if all things are normal and there are no agendas being pursued by special interest groups that are using education, politics, government, entertainment and the legal system to force an irrational, immoral and unnatural way of thinking, acting and relating on us.”
Morality evolves with time. In biblical times, slavery was considered moral. Now we know it is reprehensible. Only a relatively few decades ago, LGBTQ people were considered immoral. Now we know it is a normal aspect of the natural world. Those with progressive values see the cruelty, marginalization and persecution so many Christians heap on the LGBTQ community and find that reprehensible.
Progressives seek to treat the LGBTQ with the dignity, respect and tolerance they deserve. That’s the only “agenda” here. Nobody’s trying to harm Christianity or any other person. You’re free to practice your religion, but just keep it to yourselves and let others live their lives how they want to.
LikeLike
July 6, 2023 at 7:46 am
Preacherteacher, again you’ve piled on more than I have time to deal with now, so I’ll leave most of it for the live argument. But I’ll point out a few things here and there:
“Many theist who accept evolution refer only to small changes within kinds, not Darwinian evolution. Many others who have been influenced by false science teaching, believe in Darwinian evolution out if ignorance. I have talked with many and can tell you that many of them did not have a clue. There are also many scientists who reject Darwinian evolution privately, while going along with Darwinian evolution publicly, because of the tyranny against Darwin dissenters in academia and government.”
That is a claim the creationist websites make, and it’s simply false. The MAJORITY of scientists believe in God, gods or other higher power. And there are thousands of evolutionary biologists who are Christians. That “tyranny against Darwin dissenters” is easy for people like you to swallow because it fits in with the persecuted Christian narrative..but it’s simply not true. If it were, evangelical and Pentecostal scientists like Francis Collins and Robert Bakker wouldn’t be heading the NIH and Human Genome Project or providing so much supportive evidence for evolutionary theory.
If evolutionary theory were wrong and there was ANY credible evidence against it, you can bet that evidence would be published in the reputable science journals because it would guarantee fame and a Nobel Prize. You clearly don’t know any scientists and haven’t been to any science conferences if you think you can get a roomful of them to agree on ANYTHING without strongly supportive evidence. And the idea that scientists could or would maintain a worldwide conspiracy about evolution is unrealistic in the extreme.
And finally, WHY would scientists even want to maintain such a fiction? What benefit would there be for them to maintain a worldwide conspiracy to push evolution on the world? The fact of evolution does nothing to discredit religious belief, only to discredit the idea of a 6000 year old universe, a worldwide flood and other unsupported myths.
Oh, and one last thing, your use of the term “Darwinian evolution“ is a giveaway you haven’t done your homework. Darwinian evolution has been obsolete since the discovery of heredity and genetics. The term most in use today for evolutionary theory is the Modern Synthesis, which incorporates heredity, genetics, epigenetics and more into evolution by natural selection. As with any theory, it must be open to falsification and change, so it is continually modified to fit new evidence.
“Of your listed 6 steps, only step1 is generally properly and honestly done by atheist evolutionists.
Steps 2 thru 6 are where your games start and are heavily depended on, so we can debate that.”
That is not “my list,” it is the scientific method. There are no games being played here, and the scientific community wouldn’t accept games. Any explanation in science that fails to follow those steps is not scientific. That is a huge problem for creationism, but not a problem at all for evolutionary theory.
“But for the readers here, I state this to offset your grand standing and attempt to have the debate here on this forum. There is a reason why I prefer to have our dialogue in real time.”
If you think that will help you, fine, but I think you would find it easier to research any claim I make here easier than trying to do so live. But it’s all the same to me. You do you.
“What do you mean by “biblical literalism”?”
It’s actually a pretty common Christian term. Biblical literalism is the belief that wherever possible the Bible should be interpreted as literal truth, including such things as a young earth, the exodus, the flood, and etc.
“Derrek, please define “hypothesis” and ‘Theory” for me.”
Sure. In science a THEORY is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not ‘guesses’ but reliable accounts of the real world” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory).
And while I’m at it, a HYPOTHESIS is “a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation” (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=hypothesis).
A FACT is “an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)” (such as undisturbed fossils being ordered by lineage, all species being based on DNA, etc.) (https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/scientific%20fact).
And a LAW is “a statement, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.” … “Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may entail one or several laws.” (https://www.definitions.net/definition/scientific+law).
So a hypothesis is a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, typically based on observed facts and laws, and a theory is a hypothesis (or hypotheses) that has undergone extensive testing and has a wide body of supportive evidence. A theory is the HIGHEST level of explanatory certainty in science.
“Also, as I have said, your reliance on what you call “falsifiability” as a prerequisite for having a hypothesis, and Something being or having a scientific explanation, is foolish.”
I’m sorry but that’s absurd. For a hypothesis or theory to be scientific, it MUST make testable predictions that could prove the claim FALSE, and the claim MUST be reproducible so others can verify the results. Otherwise there is no way to distinguish a theory from fantasy. Every genuine test of a thoery is an attempt to prove it false, and the more falsifiable predictions a theory makes, the better. Since a theory is always subject to further discoveries of evidence, which could potentially prove the theory false, a theory is ALWAYS considered provisional. That means evidence can never prove a theory TRUE, only FALSE. However, the more evidence that supports a theory, the more confidence we have that the theory is an accurate explanation for the phenomenon. Any theory that cannot be refuted by some conceivable evidence is not scientific, and irrefutability is NOT a virtue for a scientific theory.
“I am intrigued by your uncontrollable need to demonstrate here and now, how much you know about the scientific method and science. Where do you get the time to do so when you don’t have time for a real time dialogue?”
The reason I’m giving you so much information is easy to understand. I’ve dealt with creationist arguments for over four decades now, and EVERY TIME it comes to dealing with science, they don’t know the basic definitions, nor even how the scientific method works. It means I have to go over it all again and again, which just wastes time. So I’m giving you information you’re clearly not aware of in the hopes you will do your research first.
As for my available time, sometimes I have a random block of time available, and I use that to answer emails from fundies. I often have up to a dozen or so arguments going at once, and they take time. But I thought YOU were the one who wanted time to watch my videos.
“It is as if you have an agenda to do all you can to persuade those here, not to believe in God or the Bible.”
Where do you get that idea? I don’t have a problem with religious people and I don’t really care what they believe as long as they don’t expect me to live according to their dogma. My problem is only with those believers who attempt to impose THEIR agenda on society, and most especially on science. I have plenty of religious friends of all stripes, but they’re not fundies. If you believe in God, good for you. If you believe in ignoring or twisting scientific evidence, then we have a problem.
“Your statement demonstrates why I would not bother taking a bet from you on such matters, you will not be honest, you will not willingly accurately represent our best arguments, and you pretend that you are sincere and proclaiming truth.”
That is a false accusation. I don’t make claims that I can’t support, and I am always on the search for the BEST arguments for creationism/ID. If you know anything about science, you know that there is nothing in my bet that is deceitful or hidden. If you were confident that you’re right, you would take my bet. Your defensiveness is to me an indicator that you smell a trap where none exists. Anyone with a good understanding of basic science can see that there’s no trap…but it does require knowing how science works.
““Creationists websites that don’t base their claims on science?” For you to be able to state such a blatant lie, makes it clear to me that you are either horribly arrogant, or sadly ignorant and don’t know it.”
Like I said, I don’t make claims I can’t support:
From the Creation Ministries International Doctrines and Beliefs: “No interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record” (https://creation.com/what-we-believe).
From the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith: “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record” (https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/).
From the Creation Research Society Statement of Belief: “The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs” (https://creationresearch.org/statement-of-belief/).
From the Institute for Creation Research tenets: “The Bible … is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological” (https://www.icr.org/tenets).
What this means is that the members of these creationist organizations are REQUIRED to make their claims in exclusion of any evidence that proves their claims wrong, or they must force the evidence to fit their religious narrative. This eliminates any scientific credibility from their work, because NOTHING is more unscientific than ignoring evidence or twisting it to fit a predetermined narrative. Yet that is exactly what they do, and they outright admit it. Any credible scientist caught doing that would lose his or her job, and it would call into question all his previous research, which would have to be re-examined, perhaps from scratch. THIS is why creationist scientists have no credibility in the science community.
“I have talked with many science teacher on the college level who hold your views, and I have debated a few, so I am neither impressed nor concerned by your degree. And I will prove that you are indeed taught “what” to think and not how.”
Based on various demonstrably false claims you’ve made here, I have a hard time believing you’ve actually debated anyone who understands evolutionary theory, but I am MOST interested in knowing how you will “prove” I’m being taught what to think and not how. Don’t forget to do that live! 🙂
“You have went out of your way to trash the Biblical God, Christianity and the Bible, so now you are going to have to face your incompetence in real time.”
Yeah, good luck with that! 😉
As usual, I went longer than expected. Ah, well.
LikeLike
July 6, 2023 at 10:06 am
derekmathias you Said:
“Morality evolves with time”
That depends on how you define morality and what type of morality you are referring to. While some things right at one time can be wrong at another time, this does not negate the fact that some things are always wrong. Homosexuality will always be wrong.
You said:
“In biblical times, slavery was considered moral. Now we know it is reprehensible.”
Again, that depends on what type of “slavery” you are referring to and how you define it. The time factor and culture factor also is to be considered if you are really interested in be accurate about the topic. But you don’t seem to be interested if it counters your convictions.
You said:
“Only a relatively few decades ago, LGBTQ people were considered immoral. Now we know it is a normal aspect of the natural world”.
“was Considered”, now we “know”? Is that why you don’t define “morality”. On what bases was it “considered immoral”, and on what bases is it now “known” to be normal?
by the way, how dare you leave out the + in LGBTQ. How unkind of you.
You said:
“Those with progressive values see the cruelty, marginalization and persecution so many Christians heap on the LGBTQ community and find that reprehensible.”
Throwing such words out without defining them is tacky when you defend perversion. How do you define cruelty? What is marginalization as you define it? Define persecution as you are using it. You people are notorious for redefining word.
You said:
“Progressives seek to treat the LGBTQ with the dignity, respect and tolerance they deserve”.
No, “progressives” seek to glorify perversion, trivialize immorality and normalize it to be accepted as a good thing. Treating people with dignity does not require agreeing with their depravity or allowing them to control what truth and moral is. Respect does not require agreement with perversion or depravity, depravity and perversion does not deserve tolerance. The fact that “progressives” claim what you just stated, is evidence that you all are not interested in truth or morality.
You said:
That’s the only “agenda” here. Nobody’s trying to harm Christianity or any other person. You’re free to practice your religion, but just keep it to yourselves and let others live their lives how they want to.”
That is the lie the homosexual and atheist activists have been using from the start. And sadly, many people have fallen for those lies and have been conned into accepting the madness by the constant programing being pushed by homosexual controlled or influenced media, Hollywood, education, medical and government institutions. No matter how many foolish people agree with depravity and perversion, it will never be right.
LikeLike
July 16, 2023 at 10:32 am
“That depends on how you define morality and what type of morality you are referring to. While some things right at one time can be wrong at another time, this does not negate the fact that some things are always wrong.”
Are you trying to say that slavery was EVER morally good? God was insistent enough in the 10 commandments to say don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t boil a goat in its mother’s milk, etc….but at the same time slavery was morally acceptable to him? How is that not evil?
“Homosexuality will always be wrong.”
Really? Homosexuality is a natural part of the world. It’s been observed in lions, penguins, sheep, cattle, horses, domestic cats, dogs, parakeets, bonobos, emus, rats, orcas, salmon, lizards, rattlesnakes, frogs, a huge variety of insects and literally DOZENS of other species. If homosexuality is wrong, why make it so prevalent in the animal kingdom? Why make a sizable percentage of humans gay? Why have it give a reproductive advantage to other family members? Finally, why choose such an arbitrary and harmless thing to be wrong? But slavery? Yeah, God is just fine with that.
“Again, that depends on what type of “slavery” you are referring to and how you define it. The time factor and culture factor also is to be considered if you are really interested in be accurate about the topic. But you don’t seem to be interested if it counters your convictions.”
Oh, I very much WANT to be corrected if I’m wrong. Please, enlighten me how an all-powerful God can be moral by allowing his people to buy slaves, allow little girls to be captured in battle and forced into sexual slavery, allow a slave owner to beat his slave so badly it takes her DAYS to crawl back to her feet?
““was Considered”, now we “know”? Is that why you don’t define “morality”. On what bases was it “considered immoral”, and on what bases is it now “known” to be normal?”
Wow, way to deflect. 😉 I didn’t define morality because I assumed you were familiar with the definition. But if not, here you go: Morality is a set of values, beliefs, and principles that guide an individual’s behavior and decisions. And immoral behavior is the deliberate and unnecessary causing of harm or suffering (which is what happens when you marginalize, demonize and persecute homosexuals).
Homosexuality is now known to be normal for multiple reasons. Not only is it found throughout the animal kingdom and at all levels, but it offers reproductive advantages for siblings, helps forge bonds in societies and more. There is no rational reason to marginalize homosexuality.
“Throwing such words out without defining them is tacky when you defend perversion. How do you define cruelty? What is marginalization as you define it? Define persecution as you are using it. You people are notorious for redefining word.”
Oh come on, surely you are at least somewhat familiar with the definitions of these words! I’m sure you know full well what is meant by cruelty and marginalization. If you don’t…look them up! I shouldn’t have to do that for you.
“No, “progressives” seek to glorify perversion, trivialize immorality and normalize it to be accepted as a good thing.”
As a progressive myself, I can assure you whoever told you that was either lying or deeply misinformed. I could easily turn that same accusation upon you for your waffling, deflection and misdirection about your God’s position on slavery. I could use that to claim Christians want to enslave people. Would that be accurate? Of course not! So don’t make up lies about progressive intent.
Our objective is to examine all morality and judge it on its effects on society. We try to identify those who are attacked for no other reason than religious bigotry, and defend them. Generally speaking, we believe in the “veil of secrecy,” which basically means designing society whereby you don’t know what position you will hold in that society. If you believe in religious freedom, you should think twice about persecuting others for holding different beliefs.
“Treating people with dignity does not require agreeing with their depravity or allowing them to control what truth and moral is.”
I think I’m pretty clear on what isn’t moral. You seem to be the one trying to hide from giving a clear explanation. And who are you to say what is depraved? “Depravity” should be DEMONSTRATED to be wrong before vilifying it.
“That is the lie the homosexual and atheist activists have been using from the start.”
Oh really? Please provide ANY credible evidence that your claim is true. If you want to be taken seriously and treated with respect, DO NOT ASSUME the person you are talking to is lying. Give them the benefit of the doubt. ASK them why they believe what they do before assuming they’re lying.
LikeLike
August 23, 2023 at 2:15 am
Hello, Preacherteacher. Assuming you’ve prepared as you requested this time to do, I’m ready for our debate from now until mid-September. As I noted before, I’m available almost any day of the week between 6 a.m. and 11 a.m. EST.
Which topic do you prefer to discuss? The scientific merits of evolutionary theory vs. creationism, or whether the God of the Bible is an evil monster? (If there’s time, we can do both!)
LikeLike
August 23, 2023 at 6:27 am
How does Sept. 15 look for you? How do you want to connect to discuss the format? I don’t want to post personal info. here. I have a good format that will allow us both have our say, and we must include a cross examination period. That is mandatory. 5 min opening remarks for both, 20 min rebuttal for both, two cross examination 10 min periods for each, and 5 min. closing remarks. I would prefer to do one topic at a time. We will deal with the most important first the God issue.
LikeLike
August 23, 2023 at 1:15 pm
September 15 looks good, and feel free to choose whichever time works best for you within my available window. I mainly use WhatsApp, iMessage and Skype, but I’m open to something else if you prefer. Skype may be a good choice since you can just look up my name to find me without exchanging any (additional) personal info here. And I’m fine with the evil God issue being the topic.
What I don’t want is a formal debate structure. That’s just way too stilted for my tastes, and it requires significant time to prepare and practice to get the timing right. I prefer to go in cold and keep it a casual but respectful back-and-forth (although I’m fine if you prepare all you want). If you’re okay with that, I don’t foresee any problems.
LikeLike
August 23, 2023 at 5:36 pm
I am fine with a direct back and forth, I think I can trust your being respectful and curious, so we can try that. I prefer zoom since I am comfortable using it. haven’t used skype is years. I can send you the zoom link and you will have all the feature access.
LikeLike
August 24, 2023 at 5:27 am
Thanks for being willing to do that. And I’m fine with Zoom. I do use it on rare occasions, so with the link I’ll be all set.
LikeLike
September 6, 2023 at 8:02 am
Derrick, how do I contact you or send you the Zoom invite? Also, I prefer that this first exchange be private, so as to avoid any distractions or interference. Agreed?
LikeLike
September 6, 2023 at 12:40 pm
You can use introducedratenterprises@gmail.com. And certainly, private makes sense. It will give us a chance to do a test recording just to make sure the equipment works right.
LikeLike
September 28, 2023 at 6:11 am
For anyone who’s interested, here is a recording of the debate between Preacherteacher and me: https://youtu.be/Co3teyLSl9o. We’re supposed to have a part 2 soon, but Preacherteacher hasn’t gotten back to me with a date and time yet.
LikeLike
September 28, 2023 at 6:14 pm
@Preacherteacher, I’m in the process of listening to your interaction with Derek. It’ll take a little while due to my workload, but here are my observations thus far.
1) Derek claims to seek refutations of his views and does what he can to seek out legitimate criticisms of his stated beliefs. Given his statements on this blog, that is demonstrably untrue. He offers opinions on court decisions he has not read. He comments authoritatively on what the Constitutions says without having even read that document. He claims to know what the Christian position on morality and goodness is when his statements clearly show that he doesn’t have a sweet clue what that position is—even though it is easily discoverable on the Internet. And he claims to know the particulars of certain arguments when it is clear that he knows practically nothing about those arguments. It is a transparently dishonest attempt to paint himself as objective. He is clearly not.
2) I was disappointed to hear you acknowledge that an aspect of faith is belief without evidence. The traditional definition of faith is belief and trust based on evidence. There is obviously a trust element in faith, but that cuts across all belief systems. If you flip a light switch, you are trusting that it will turn on the lights, even though it is possible that the lights won’t turn on (a problem with the wiring, etc.). But based on your experience, you trust that it is likely that the lights will turn on. Yes, you affirm experiential faith, but our trust or faith is never an appeal to a lack of evidence. We have solid evidential grounds to trust in God.
LikeLike
September 28, 2023 at 6:18 pm
Oh, and this great tidbit from Derek is his claim that if he makes a mistake, he wants to be called out on it because he wouldn’t want to make that mistake again! What a howler! He’s been shown multiple mistakes here, and his predictable response is to dig in his heels and counterattack. The most basic, fundamental errors in logic or fact have repeatedly been flagged without the slightest concession from him. I guess since he’s posted that on his channel, he must be playing to his audience.
LikeLike
September 29, 2023 at 1:10 am
I don’t know why you keep talking here, Scalia. Once you made it clear you are only interested in deliberately mischaracterizing and insulting people, rather than engage in honest discourse, you ceased to be relevant. I feel sorry for you, but since you have nothing to contribute, I’m really not interested in anything you have to say.
LikeLike
September 29, 2023 at 9:18 am
@Derek the Dingbat. My comments are directed at Preacherteacher, as is EVIDENT by the first line of Post 88! I couldn’t care less what you think because you became irrelevant to me long ago (as I told you multiple times (because you kept replying when I told you to stop)).
My sole interest in the video is to see how Preacherteacher (his real name is posted in the video) argues his points.
So, Dumbo, if you’re going to reply to any post of mine, you could at least prevent further embarrassment to yourself if you just realized that, excepting now, you weren’t even being addressed!
LikeLike
September 29, 2023 at 9:49 am
“2) I was disappointed to hear you acknowledge that an aspect of faith is belief without evidence.”
Hi Scalia, sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree fully with your point on faith, and that is what I was trying to convey to Derek in our discussion. Although there are things that we have not or cannot see, and yet are required to accept by faith, it is due to that which we have been provided sufficient evidence for already. The “aspect” I was referring to that is without “evidence” is the non visible, the “not seen” of Hebrews 11:1. That is not a confession to blind faith, or evidence-less faith. But a faith that does not require present visible conformation due to accumulate prior evidence. I pointed out to him that God provide sufficient evidence for us through out history. Christianity is an evidential faith. I thought I got that point across clearly. If not, I will include a clarification in my commentary on our discussion when I publish it.
LikeLike
September 29, 2023 at 10:06 am
Thanks for the clarification. I’m only about halfway through the discussion. I hope to listen to the rest over the weekend and will comment further, if necessary.
Derek’s definition of faith as belief without evidence is just stupidity squared. It shows that he never made the slightest effort to ascertain what the doctrine of faith is. He’s a so-called scientist who willfully neglects the basic principles of science when it comes to investigating the subjects he discusses. Why in the world would anybody comment on a matter of which he is ignorant, especially when his ignorance is pointed out to him? It can only be what you accurately stated during the debate: Derek is out to destroy the faith of Christians. He’s not interested in finding out what they actually believe, nor is he interested in addressing the points of contention in an intellectual manner. He knows that the vast majority of Christians are not theologians/philosophers, so he counts on their ignorance to sow doubt in their hearts about their faith. He wants to destroy the faith of Christians in order to give the Left further political leverage (as he tacitly admits in the debate).
LikeLike
September 29, 2023 at 10:10 am
“@Preacherteacher, I’m in the process of listening to your interaction with Derek. It’ll take a little while due to my workload, but here are my observations thus far….”
I understand your analysis of Derek, and the evidence you reference that substantiates your accusations about him. some of this may come up in our later discussions. But I prefer not to discuss this until I have posted my commentary on our discussion. As I have said about him and he about me, there seems to be two sides of both of our characters when it comes to communication, I think our personal dialogs will provide much better opportunity to understand each other’s views and determine who is really seeking to get at the truth. But I totally agree with you that what he has published here and elsewhere does indeed stand as official evidence of what he is really trying to accomplish. Naturally that applies to you and I as well. Seeing if he can defend his published comments is one of the things I am trying to get him to do. My other goals will be explained in my commentary on our first dialogue. I don’t want to reveal them here. Thanks for your comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
October 9, 2023 at 4:55 am
Since Derek posted our first dialogue link here, I thought I would also. My version has comments to help clarify a few things, and correct any errors of misperceptions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKeXYv3KVtA
LikeLike
October 10, 2023 at 1:03 pm
@Preacherteacher, I was listening to see how you would interact with Derek over science, but this instead turned out to be almost entirely focused on the problem of evil. You tried to get Derek to understand that he is in no position to judge infinity from a finite perspective, and to at least acknowledge that the account of Jephthah’s daughter may have been based on a mistranslation. And while those issues are interesting to a degree, whether or not one passage should have been translated differently is tangential to Derek’s point. And telling somebody that he’s in no position to judge God appears only convincing to the choir. In my experience, that gains little apologetic traction. They’re going to judge anyway, and those on the fence will view that as a tactical dodge. The best that an atheist can hope to gain in a problem of evil debate is to utilize the extremely strong emotional pull that evil elicits. And that is often decisive in the court of public opinion when we counter with a “you’re not authorized to judge.” To me, that’s one of the quickest ways to lose a debate.
Derek has no objective account of evil. Everything he says about morality is subjective, which strips him of the epistemological warrant to judge any act from a moral standpoint, let alone the acts of God. Since there is no objective evil on atheism, complaints about God’s being evil or the pervasive evil in the world are just so much hand-waiving. All that amounts to is an account of what the atheist doesn’t like. Derek has countered that he is merely accepting morality on a theist’s terms to show that God is evil. But to accept morality on a theist’s terms means that you must understand what morality is in the first place, and Derek has shown himself to be completely incompetent in that regard. He doesn’t have the slightest clue what the Christian position is on good and evil and ends up projecting his own sense of morality onto Christianity in order to condemn God. And he further fails to realize that to accept the Christian position arguendo is to accept the infinite goodness of God. And once that is done, then logical consistency dictates that there is a morally justifiable reason for evil regardless our ability to see what that reason could be. Rationally speaking, then, Derek’s position is indefensible.
The logical problem of evil has long been recognized by atheists as a dead argument. Most of them instead focus on the emotional problem of evil to question the likelihood of God’s existence. Though they cannot logically foreclose a justifiable reason for evil, the apparent inability of any theist to even approximate an adequate justification for the atrocities we’ve witness renders it highly unlikely that an all-benevolent God exists. But this, at bottom, is again an emotional appeal seasoned with disingenuousness. On atheism, we’re nothing but molecule sacks in motion. There is no objective evil or good. What we like or dislike establishes no universal moral law. Hyenas can eat a warthog alive while it’s squealing in agony, and that’s just nature’s population control. Nothing bad about it at all. A hyena’s got to live, right? We just invent laws in accordance with our likes in order to live the way we want. But put God into the equation, then all of a sudden we’re “outraged” over the “needless” suffering many people endure. Mother Nature is great because she provides predation to curb overpopulation, but God has to be evil because He created hyenas. Mother Nature also gave us bacteria and other things which threaten human lives, but bacteria lives matter, right? They’ve got to live too, right?? Humans eat living things to survive (plants, fruit, animals), so shouldn’t it be expected that other living organisms want to live? Even without God as a focal point, atheists find themselves living as if morality were objective, all the while pretending that God is somehow at fault. But an atheist’s inconsistency notwithstanding, it appeal to emotion is not a rational position and thus cannot undermine the existence of God.
Respectfully, I just think that there are far better tactics to use if one is going to venture into the debating arena with atheists. They, like others, are a stubborn lot, so convincing them is not always the goal. Debates are really aimed at strengthening supporters, persuading honest thinkers on the other side and convincing fence-sitters. Since atheism has no moral foundation, it’s probably always best to point that out.
LikeLike
October 10, 2023 at 4:41 pm
Scalia thank for your comments
You said:
“Preacherteacher, I was listening to see how you would interact with Derek over science, but this instead turned out to be almost entirely focused on the problem of evil.”
Science is our next discussion Oct. 20th. Derek wanted to continue the God issue and I agreed to accommodate him.
You said:
“And telling somebody that he’s in no position to judge God appears only convincing to the choir. In my experience, that gains little apologetic traction.”
I agree that it may not gain any apologetic traction, but that was not my intention in making the point. They still need to be told, because they suffer from the delusion that they actually are in a position to make such a judgment the God that they actually do not believe exist. My point is that his belief does not change the facts and the fact is that he is not qualified to do so, yet they pretend (or actually think) they are morally superior to God as described in the Bible. But to reach that conclusion, they must ignore much of what the Bible says about God. Also, telling them establishes a witness against them.
You said:
“They’re going to judge anyway…. To me, that’s one of the quickest ways to lose a debate.”
I respectfully disagree, while I know that “just” saying that, will get nowhere, (and many foolish believers have attempted to “win” with just such blunt and isolated comments), it hardly loses the debate when you use it as a part of your “intelligent arguments arsenal”. Stating it is an important part of setting up a case against their irrational and illogical position. Please let’s discuss this via email as I do not want to do this here. It may interfere with our dialogue.
You said:
“Derek has no objective account of evil. …. But an atheist’s inconsistency notwithstanding, it appeal to emotion is not a rational position and thus cannot undermine the existence of God.”
I agree, but if they do not see that, we try to help them to. That effort is never wasted, accept when I continue after God tells me to stop trying.
You said:
“Respectfully, I just think that there are far better tactics to use if one is going to venture into the debating arena with atheists.”
I understand your view, but also, respectfully, we are individuals, and have our own ways of dealing with such issues. I may have greater patience than you, as I have been at this for quite a few years. I also am willing to settle for having done all I can to make sure that our side is accurately heard. I am not the one who saves, so I am not concerned about “winning” an argument. But I am very concerned about being accurate and speaking the true in love, which does indeed at times require sternness. Being another witness that leaves him without an excuse, and hopefully along the way perhaps get him a little closer to the truth, is good enough for me.
I appreciate you input. We can dialogue more freely via email. I will reach out to you if you don’t have mine.
LikeLike
October 11, 2023 at 8:26 am
I get where you’re coming from. Just my two cents from the bleachers. 🙂
Anyway, I told Jason that he’s free to give you my email. So, if you’d like to discuss this and other matters privately, just ask Jason and we can continue the dialog.
LikeLike
October 11, 2023 at 12:32 pm
Done and sent, look forward to our discussion.
LikeLike
October 11, 2023 at 12:34 pm
Done and sent. I look forward to our discussions.
LikeLike
October 12, 2023 at 2:45 am
And here you go again, Scalia, claiming others don’t know what they’re talking about while demonstrating that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
First, you seem to think that there is only one Christian position on good and evil. I’ve debated enough Christians to know that they argue multiple positions in their defense of God’s behavior. Some say anything God does is good by definition, and thus whatever he does can’t be evil by definition. Others claim he does commit evil but only in order to bring about a greater good. Still others insist his apparently evil actions are actually good but are merely interpreted incorrectly. And yet others claim that the Bible isn’t meant to be taken literally and that God never actually did those evil actions. This inability to agree on a position of evil is just one of the reasons why the problem of evil remains arguably the biggest problem for Christianity (it is certainly NOT a dead argument among atheists, much as Christians might wish it to be).
Evidently your personal position is that God is “infinitely” good. That’s nice, but do you have any evidence to support this—that is, apart from a few claims made by characters in the Bible insisting that God is the only good being? I doubt it. But good and evil are determined by behavior, not by celebrity. The various characters in the Bible can shout at the top of their lungs that God is good, but when the Bible shows him repeatedly committing some of the most horrific atrocities possible, well, actions speak louder than words. There would need to be some truly extraordinary evidence to justify his behavior in our minds. Even if you refuse to accept those atrocities as clear evidence that your god is evil, you should at least realize why so many people have a rational basis for finding Christianity repugnant, and don’t trust Christians for their worship of a being who has demonstrated his willingness to inflict all manner of abuse on humanity—even against those who love and follow him (read Job).
You claim I have no objective account of evil, but so what? Neither do you. You BELIEVE you do, sure, but it’s just a belief you can’t support with any credible evidence. Christians will almost universally agree that committing or condoning atrocities is objectively evil, but when it’s pointed out that God commits or condones them throughout the Bible, suddenly those behaviors are good when HE does them. That is moral relativism, because it means basing morality relative to who you are, not on what you do.
One thing you are right about is that atheism has no moral foundation. But neither has theism. Just as theism needs to get into a specific religion (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, whatever) to come up with a moral foundation, atheism needs to get into a specific philosophy to to come up with a moral foundation. That’s largely secular humanism, which doesn’t allow for such egregious behaviors as slavery, child abuse, genocide and all the other atrocities considered morally acceptable in the Bible. So I actually have a more justifiable moral foundation than you do.
I’ve made my position on good and evil quite clear: good is behavior that enhances well-being, while evil is behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. That definition of evil is something almost everyone can agree upon (and that includes most Christians…until it is pointed out that God deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering throughout the Bible). Does that position sound like an emotional appeal to you? It shouldn’t, because it’s based on a rational assessment of values, specifically well-being. Do you like the idea of living in a society where you can be robbed, raped, enslaved and murdered without consequence? Well neither do I. That’s why I don’t rob, rape, enslave or murder, and it’s why I want to live in a society that honors that social contract. It’s as simple as that. I don’t have to try to twist the claims of some ancient book in order to define evil as somehow good.
Is my position on good and evil subjective? In any absolute sense, sure…but that’s also true for the horrible “morality” taught in the Bible (it’s just fine to beat a slave girl so badly she takes days to crawl back to her feet? Seriously?). Just because you believe your God made it up doesn’t automatically make it more objective than personal opinion. However, if we define our OBJECTIVES, we can make a subjective morality objective. For instance, if my goal is to increase the overall well-being of society, then there are behaviors that objectively hinder that—including murder, rape, slavery, and the rest of the atrocities—and thus they are OBJECTIVELY evil relative to my objective. That’s why the argument over objective vs. subjective morality is mostly pointless, since it all depends on one’s values.
Finally, I’m really surprised you couldn’t figure out the whole suffering in nature issue. So let me explain it: If the world is natural only, then pain evolved as a way to dissuade life from engaging in dangerous activities, and suffering is the inevitable result of unrelenting pain. That’s not evil, it’s just the unfortunate reality of how evolution works because the ability to feel pain ultimately increases the odds of survival. On the other hand, if there’s an all-powerful god who deliberately and unnecessarily designed life with the capacity to suffer, and then he deliberately and unnecessarily causes life to suffer…well, then we’re talking about someone who fulfills the definition of evil, aren’t we? Does that clear it up for you?
So, Scalia, clearly you don’t understand this whole topic nearly as well as you think. It never ceases to amaze me how quick apologists can be to rail against topics they know nothing about. I would NEVER have argued against the Bible without having studied it first, along with numerous articles and commentary by Christians themselves. Yet almost always apologists argue against atheism and science without even bothering to study what the atheists or scientists themselves are saying and why. That’s just weird. (Then again, most Christians don’t even bother reading the entire Bible—the book they believe is the foundation of their salvation—so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised.)
LikeLike
October 12, 2023 at 7:28 am
I should say to you Derek, that I certainly understand your arguments, and how you come to your conclusions. But I have also gained a more favorable attitude about you than I had just by exchanging thread posts with you here. I do believe that you sincerely think you are approaching the God issue from the moral and correct perspective. And that your efforts to influence people to adopt your views are the result of your thinking your are correct about this issue. I think that your continued discussions with Christians who are both knowledgeable, and have accurate knowledge about the Bible, and who can love you in spite of your views and efforts to persuade people against God, will benefit you. And if done sufficiently, consistently and respectfully, they may by God’s grace, one day eventually cause your to see the truth. I am actually enjoying our discussions, and I apologize for any misconceptions that I may have had about you just from our exchanges here. You have clearly, in addition to meeting many uninformed believers, accumulated a lot of information from atheist and poor Christian sources that I think are not sound, which control your thinking, (and I am sure you think the same of me), But keeping friendly discussions open are the best way to resolve such disagreements, and I think God uses them to reveal truth, and to convince and convict us. I look forward to our next discussion.
LikeLike
October 12, 2023 at 9:01 am
Thanks for the positive response, Danzil. I know we disagree on almost everything on this topic, but I do consider you a nice guy and I too appreciate our ability to have a constructive dialog. (Not so with Scalia, unfortunately, since he is more interested in cultivating grudges and insults than having a substantive discourse.)
I’ll be posting the video of our part 2 debate on Saturday, along with a video on my thoughts so far. I’ll post the link here. That reminds me, I owe you a video or two on evolution. I’ll email them to you.
Cheers.
LikeLike
October 12, 2023 at 11:40 am
Derek the Dingbat, your long, wasted post continues to demonstrate your inability to pay attention to what you’ve read or to remember previous discussions. Anybody with a third-grade education can tell you that there are all kinds of Christians who have undeveloped positions with respect to morality, and their versions are all over the map. That has nothing to do with the standard, majority position on good and evil that’s been in place for a very long time. You don’t have a sweet clue what it is in spite of the fact that you were told a long time ago to look it up. If you really cared about the issue, you would have done your research. You failed to do so, and yet you claim to be a scientist. You’re a joke.
And you also don’t have a sweet clue whether I can support my claims with rational argument because you’re willfully ignorant of the matter you’ve taken upon yourself to debate. I most certainly CAN support my arguments with evidence, but I have NO interest in debating you because you’re a demonstrable liar. You don’t argue in good faith (as proved via multiple debates).
Now, why don’t you honor your own word and quit reading my posts? I wasn’t addressing you at all. I addressed Preacherteacher. I have zero respect for you as a human being, and I’ve told you myriad times that I will not debate you. It is a total waste of time to interact with somebody who will not argue in good faith. You’re a buffoon who likes to laugh at people without realizing that you’ve been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
October 12, 2023 at 11:45 am
Preacher teacher writes,
Hope springs eternal, I know. You will discover otherwise. I know you don’t have the time to read through his “debates” here, but Derek is clearly a dishonest person. His friendly demeanor belies his dishonesty. I have twice given him a fair shake, but his true colors emerge once he’s hit with either facts he cannot refute or when he’s confronted with his own errors. You will learn by experience.
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 3:30 am
Thanks Scalia, I am happy to say you were correct. Derek misrepresented my arguments as soon as he had the chance. I did try to give Derek the benefit of the doubt, but like a snake, he bit me as soon as he got our second video dialogue. I guess he was just trying to get content for his channel. Nevertheless, it was not a total waist. I have a heap of data to work on that will be a great tool for my training lessons on dealing with Atheists. Now, I will be adding a section on “atheist con jobs”. We have to have pity and keep praying for God’s mercy on him. God can certainly save him, but if not, I pray that God will reward him according to his deeds. Thanks for your diligent efforts, good looking out.
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 7:24 am
Preacherteacher, as I pointed out in our exchanges in the comments of the debate videos, I did not intend to misrepresent your positions, nor do I believe I have. You agreed to certain points in the debates, and I pointed out the inevitable consequences of those points. You don’t have to like my conclusions, nor do you have to agree with them, but if so you should argue against them rather than accuse me of dishonesty and trying to trick you. I assure you I intend no such thing, and I apologize if I’ve upset you. I’ve found our debates interesting and instructive, but don’t think that I’m going to be convinced by your defense of God’s behavior unless you provide something more compelling than that he works in mysterious ways and he can do what he wants. Surely you have to realize that you need more than that to change the mind of someone who has so much biblical and other evidence that your God is evil.
At any rate, I hope that doesn’t mean you’re canceling our next scheduled debate on evolutionary theory vs. creationism. I think that should be a highly interesting debate. But let me know either way.
For those who would like to view what Danzil is talking about, here are the links to the two videos in question:
Debate part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CDOAL1rTKg
Follow-up thoughts: https://youtu.be/_CDOAL1rTKg?si=5dMASIk5K8Iu2zOx
You can check the comments for Danzil’s accusations about my misrepresentation and my responses. His username is @AFJDP if you have trouble finding it.
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 10:10 am
Derek, this is my reply to your last comments:
You said:
“Preacherteacher, as I pointed out in our exchanges in the comments of the debate videos, I did not intend to misrepresent your positions, nor do I believe I have. You agreed to certain points in the debates, and I pointed out the inevitable consequences of those points. You don’t have to like my conclusions, nor do you have to agree with them, but if so you should argue against them rather than accuse me of dishonesty and trying to trick you.”
Derek, I have no issue with your expressing your conclusions about our discussion or any topic. I do however have a concern when in order to bolster the credibility of your conclusions, you have to claim that I agree to what I clearly did not agree to.
Honesty and accuracy is mandatory if you are going to represent what someone has said.
Constant misrepresentation of people has become a key tactic in our social media society, and I have tried not to be a part of it. Not only because of my Christian faith, but because it is decent.
Also, I know that my position is solid enough that I don’t have to boost it by cleverly misrepresenting what others say to make my views sound better than it is.
My acknowledging God’s punishing of sinful people throughout the history of the Bible (and our modern history for that matter), is not an acknowledgement that He did so “unnecessarily”.
I constantly tried to point out to you, that your arguments against the God of the Bible are based on your inaccurate representation of what the Bible says about God and His actions. I am convinced that this is intentional. You don’t want the God of the Bible to be real, and you clearly don’t want to honestly represent Him to your viewers. As you said, you want to prosecute Him.
But to do so, you seem to have to be careless, dishonest and inaccurate about how you do it.
You boasted about my not giving you one Bible verse displaying God’s love, when you know the direction our discussion took, and that my asking you how it was that you claim to have read the entire Bible, and not seen any evidence of God expressing love or doing anything loving, received a halfhearted slight admission of “not entirely evil”.
That tells me that no matter what textual evidence you are given, you will not accept it as “love”, because you can’t. You have invested all of your time and material into claiming He was evil. Yet you asked me to point it out to you as if you really tried to find it and wanted to see an example in the Bible. But I realized that the fact that you accused God of causing people to do evil, and that you complain that if he is all powerful he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment of sin, then nothing He did or does will be viewed as love or loving to you.
So your request was not sincere, and thus nothing to boast about not having been answered.
You did indeed trick me, you gave me assurance that your intention was to be accurate, and to honestly represent what I said, but you have not. You have applied the same method to me that you have applied to representing the Bible.
Case in point, you took all that I said about God and put it into one misrepresentation:
You claimed that I said: “he works in mysterious ways and he can do what he wants”.
Anyone watching the discussion, and who was honest, will know that is not true.
So for you to trivialize God, you again misrepresent what is said about Him to make it seem trivial and then you attack the triviality. I accused you of this straw-man tactic in our discussion, and you continued to practice it throughout our discussion. I understand that you have to, because to honestly and accurately approach the God of the Bible would leave you without a real argument.
You said:
“I assure you I intend no such thing, and I apologize if I’ve upset you.”
No apology necessary, I am not at all upset, I am however disappointed. I was hoping for an honest representation, and a real meeting of minds on this issue.
You said:
“I’ve found our debates interesting and instructive, but don’t think that I’m going to be convinced by your defense of God’s behavior unless you provide something more compelling…”
Well, while I also found our dialogue interesting, my goal was never to “convince” you, my goal was to inform you of your misrepresentation. I think I did that.
I paid close attention to your source material, and I knew from that, that you were not interested in being convinced. But I did not want to assume that your constant misrepresentation of the Bible and God was intentional.
You said:
“At any rate, I hope that doesn’t mean you’re canceling our next scheduled debate on evolutionary theory vs. creationism. I think that should be a highly interesting debate. But let me know either way.”
I honestly cannot see any benefit from having any more such dialogues with you. If you are only interested in content for your monetized social media, to feed your atheist supporters with, you certainly do not need me for that.
And I have an abundance of data from you to work on now, I think that my time will be better used digging into them, and creating “honest”, “accurate” and fair replies.
As I told you, I do love you as a person, and as a creations of God’s image.
And I will continue to pray for you, that the God that you do not believe in will deal with you in a manner that will free you from your campaign against Him.
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 1:32 pm
“Derek, I have no issue with your expressing your conclusions about our discussion or any topic. I do however have a concern when in order to bolster the credibility of your conclusions, you have to claim that I agree to what I clearly did not agree to.”
The problem here is that you DID agree. You agreed that you believe God is all powerful. BY DEFINITION that means you believe everything he does is UNNECESSARY, because otherwise it would mean he had no choice, and thus he would not be all powerful. Is that not patently obvious?
From my perspective, your admitting you believe God is all powerful is tantamount to the claim that you believe all his actions are unnecessary. The former necessitates the latter. By the same token, it’s essentially the same as me admitting I don’t believe in the supernatural, and thus you concluding that I don’t believe in ghosts.
Am I wrong? Do you believe there are any acts that God NECESSARILY must do? If you can name one, I will happily grant you my assumption was mistaken and I will apologize for mischaracterizing you.
“Honesty and accuracy is mandatory if you are going to represent what someone has said.”
I agree wholeheartedly. But if you make claims along the lines of saying we have no right to question God’s behavior, I do reserve the right to conclude that you are admitting you have no way of distinguishing whether he is good or evil. If you were to disagree, I would expect you to call me out and explain why I am wrong…not accuse me of some nefarious intent and then shut down all discourse. You have to have thick skin when we are arguing two vastly different viewpoints.
“My acknowledging God’s punishing of sinful people throughout the history of the Bible (and our modern history for that matter), is not an acknowledgement that He did so “unnecessarily”.”
Then show me how I’m wrong when I say admitting God is all powerful is admitting anything he does is unnecessary. I can take it without getting upset, you know that by now. I just request that you afford me the same leeway.
“I constantly tried to point out to you, that your arguments against the God of the Bible are based on your inaccurate representation of what the Bible says about God and His actions.”
But all you did was ASSERT this. You never provided any evidence for this claim at all. Ultimately, your entire argument amounted to little more than that God’s ways are not our ways (which I agree with) and we don’t have the right to question his ways (which I very much disagree with). That may be good enough for you, but it’s just not good enough for me.
“I am convinced that this is intentional. You don’t want the God of the Bible to be real, and you clearly don’t want to honestly represent Him to your viewers. As you said, you want to prosecute Him.”
It IS intentional. I’ve made that clear over and over again. Didn’t I even direct you to my video explaining exactly why I make these videos? I am an open book and I answer any question as honestly and truthfully as I can. I suspect that Christians are so used to demonizing atheists that they always assume bad intent.
It’s true that I don’t WANT the God of the Bible to be real (after all, who would want someone willing to burn the vast majority of people in hell for simply not believing in him to exist?), but more important is that I don’t BELIEVE he exists. I’ve been exposed to enough religions to know they can’t all be true…but they can all be false (as the saying goes, “Study one religion, and you’ll be hooked for life. Study two religions, and you’re done in an hour”).
“You boasted about my not giving you one Bible verse displaying God’s love”
I didn’t boast, I was simply surprised. And it wasn’t necessarily a Bible verse I asked for, but ANY example of God doing good. I’ve read both the NIV and KJV and I can’t off the top of my head think of any verse that shows God being unambiguously good. I may be wrong, because clearly I’m focused on his dark side, so I was expecting you to rattle off a few examples. It honestly surprised me when you didn’t, which is why I asked twice.
“That tells me that no matter what textual evidence you are given, you will not accept it as “love”, because you can’t.”
Now YOU are making claims about me that I haven’t stated. I’m not saying you’re wrong…but you haven’t given me anything to even consider.
“But I realized that the fact that you accused God of causing people to do evil, and that you complain that if he is all powerful he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment of sin, then nothing He did or does will be viewed as love or loving to you.”
Again you mischaracterize me (but again I won’t get upset, but merely explain), because my argument is that if God is all powerful then causing harm and suffering is UNNECESSARY. And since evil is the deliberate and unnecessary causing of harm and suffering, the logical conclusion is that God himself is evil. And we should ASSUME he is evil based on that evidence UNLESS and UNTIL he provides us with good justification for his behavior.
So it’s not that he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment for sin, but if he has justification for his behavior he SHOULD explain it to us. Otherwise, what good is having a sense of morality? Would a GOOD God want people to just worship and obey him blindly? Or would he want people to have the courage to call out perceived evil and demand an explanation? Perhaps you are fine with the former option, but I’m not.
“You did indeed trick me, you gave me assurance that your intention was to be accurate, and to honestly represent what I said, but you have not. You have applied the same method to me that you have applied to representing the Bible.”
I completely disagree, Danzil. I maintain that everything I’ve said is what I believe to be truthful and accurate. If you believe I am wrong, please correct me. But ASSERTIONS that I’m wrong are not EVIDENCE I am wrong.
“You claimed that I said: “he works in mysterious ways and he can do what he wants”. Anyone watching the discussion, and who was honest, will know that is not true.”
But that IS the gist of what you said over and over again. Do you deny that you said God’s ways are not our ways (“mysterious ways”) and that we are like clay to the potter (“do what he wants” with us)? That is exactly what I’m referring to. That’s not me being dishonest, it’s me distilling your claims down to their essential meaning. What have I taken away that changes the meaning in any significant way?
“So for you to trivialize God, you again misrepresent what is said about Him to make it seem trivial and then you attack the triviality.”
Hmm, I suspect THAT is your real objection: you don’t like my characterization of God and that irks you. Well, I’m sorry about that but it IS my honest assessment of his character. If you ask for honesty, you can’t complain when you get it.
Look, do I get upset when you mischaracterize atheists and atheism? No! I correct your misperception and will happily provide you with the evidence I have. Again, when two people have two radically different viewpoints, there will be friction, and one must have thick skin. Don’t let that be an excuse for disengaging.
“I honestly cannot see any benefit from having any more such dialogues with you. If you are only interested in content for your monetized social media, to feed your atheist supporters with, you certainly do not need me for that.”
You’re right, I don’t need that. As I noted in another post, this isn’t about feeding atheist supporters, and I certainly don’t get any revenue from my videos. You’ve seen my video explaining why I do this. My videos are mainly for fundamentalist Christians (although of course I don’t mind if other atheists use my arguments).
Well, you didn’t say an outright “no” to continuing these debates, but if you truly do not want to continue these debates, I will respect your decision. I’ll be disappointed, certainly, but I understand. Please let me know definitively, if you would.
P.S. I never received an answer to my question, what behavior would God have to commit in order for you to consider him evil?
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 1:33 pm
“Derek, I have no issue with your expressing your conclusions about our discussion or any topic. I do however have a concern when in order to bolster the credibility of your conclusions, you have to claim that I agree to what I clearly did not agree to.”
The problem here is that you DID agree. You agreed that you believe God is all powerful. BY DEFINITION that means you believe everything he does is UNNECESSARY, because otherwise it would mean he had no choice, and thus he would not be all powerful. Is that not patently obvious?
From my perspective, your admitting you believe God is all powerful is tantamount to the claim that you believe all his actions are unnecessary. The former necessitates the latter. By the same token, it’s essentially the same as me admitting I don’t believe in the supernatural, and thus you concluding that I don’t believe in ghosts.
Am I wrong? Do you believe there are any acts that God NECESSARILY must do? If you can name one, I will happily grant you my assumption was mistaken and I will apologize for mischaracterizing you.
“Honesty and accuracy is mandatory if you are going to represent what someone has said.”
I agree wholeheartedly. But if you make claims along the lines of saying we have no right to question God’s behavior, I do reserve the right to conclude that you are admitting you have no way of distinguishing whether he is good or evil. If you were to disagree, I would expect you to call me out and explain why I am wrong…not accuse me of some nefarious intent and then shut down all discourse. You have to have thick skin when we are arguing two vastly different viewpoints.
“My acknowledging God’s punishing of sinful people throughout the history of the Bible (and our modern history for that matter), is not an acknowledgement that He did so “unnecessarily”.”
Then show me how I’m wrong when I say admitting God is all powerful is admitting anything he does is unnecessary. I can take it without getting upset, you know that by now. I just request that you afford me the same leeway.
“I constantly tried to point out to you, that your arguments against the God of the Bible are based on your inaccurate representation of what the Bible says about God and His actions.”
But all you did was ASSERT this. You never provided any evidence for this claim at all. Ultimately, your entire argument amounted to little more than that God’s ways are not our ways (which I agree with) and we don’t have the right to question his ways (which I very much disagree with). That may be good enough for you, but it’s just not good enough for me.
“I am convinced that this is intentional. You don’t want the God of the Bible to be real, and you clearly don’t want to honestly represent Him to your viewers. As you said, you want to prosecute Him.”
It IS intentional. I’ve made that clear over and over again. Didn’t I even direct you to my video explaining exactly why I make these videos? I am an open book and I answer any question as honestly and truthfully as I can. I suspect that Christians are so used to demonizing atheists that they always assume bad intent.
It’s true that I don’t WANT the God of the Bible to be real (after all, who would want someone willing to burn the vast majority of people in hell for simply not believing in him to exist?), but more important is that I don’t BELIEVE he exists. I’ve been exposed to enough religions to know they can’t all be true…but they can all be false (as the saying goes, “Study one religion, and you’ll be hooked for life. Study two religions, and you’re done in an hour”).
“You boasted about my not giving you one Bible verse displaying God’s love”
I didn’t boast, I was simply surprised. And it wasn’t necessarily a Bible verse I asked for, but ANY example of God doing good. I’ve read both the NIV and KJV and I can’t off the top of my head think of any verse that shows God being unambiguously good. I may be wrong, because clearly I’m focused on his dark side, so I was expecting you to rattle off a few examples. It honestly surprised me when you didn’t, which is why I asked twice.
“That tells me that no matter what textual evidence you are given, you will not accept it as “love”, because you can’t.”
Now YOU are making claims about me that I haven’t stated. I’m not saying you’re wrong…but you haven’t given me anything to even consider.
“But I realized that the fact that you accused God of causing people to do evil, and that you complain that if he is all powerful he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment of sin, then nothing He did or does will be viewed as love or loving to you.”
Again you mischaracterize me (but again I won’t get upset, but merely explain), because my argument is that if God is all powerful then causing harm and suffering is UNNECESSARY. And since evil is the deliberate and unnecessary causing of harm and suffering, the logical conclusion is that God himself is evil. And we should ASSUME he is evil based on that evidence UNLESS and UNTIL he provides us with good justification for his behavior.
So it’s not that he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment for sin, but if he has justification for his behavior he SHOULD explain it to us. Otherwise, what good is having a sense of morality? Would a GOOD God want people to just worship and obey him blindly? Or would he want people to have the courage to call out perceived evil and demand an explanation? Perhaps you are fine with the former option, but I’m not.
“You did indeed trick me, you gave me assurance that your intention was to be accurate, and to honestly represent what I said, but you have not. You have applied the same method to me that you have applied to representing the Bible.”
I completely disagree, Danzil. I maintain that everything I’ve said is what I believe to be truthful and accurate. If you believe I am wrong, please correct me. But ASSERTIONS that I’m wrong are not EVIDENCE I am wrong.
“You claimed that I said: “he works in mysterious ways and he can do what he wants”. Anyone watching the discussion, and who was honest, will know that is not true.”
But that IS the gist of what you said over and over again. Do you deny that you said God’s ways are not our ways (“mysterious ways”) and that we are like clay to the potter (“do what he wants” with us)? That is exactly what I’m referring to. That’s not me being dishonest, it’s me distilling your claims down to their essential meaning. What have I taken away that changes the meaning in any significant way?
“So for you to trivialize God, you again misrepresent what is said about Him to make it seem trivial and then you attack the triviality.”
Hmm, I suspect THAT is your real objection: you don’t like my characterization of God and that irks you. Well, I’m sorry about that but it IS my honest assessment of his character. If you ask for honesty, you can’t complain when you get it.
Look, do I get upset when you mischaracterize atheists and atheism? No! I correct your misperception and will happily provide you with the evidence I have. Again, when two people have two radically different viewpoints, there will be friction, and one must have thick skin. Don’t let that be an excuse for disengaging.
“I honestly cannot see any benefit from having any more such dialogues with you. If you are only interested in content for your monetized social media, to feed your atheist supporters with, you certainly do not need me for that.”
You’re right, I don’t need that. As I noted in another post, this isn’t about feeding atheist supporters, and I certainly don’t get any revenue from my videos. You’ve seen my video explaining why I do this. My videos are mainly for fundamentalist Christians (although of course I don’t mind if other atheists use my arguments).
Well, you didn’t say an outright “no” to continuing these debates, but if you truly do not want to continue these debates, I will respect your decision. I’ll be disappointed, certainly, but I understand. Please let me know definitively, if you would.
P.S. I never received an answer to my question, what behavior would God have to commit in order for you to consider him evil?
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 1:58 pm
Hmm, seems like the system is having trouble posting. I’ll try again:
“Derek, I have no issue with your expressing your conclusions about our discussion or any topic. I do however have a concern when in order to bolster the credibility of your conclusions, you have to claim that I agree to what I clearly did not agree to.”
The problem here is that you DID agree. You agreed that you believe God is all powerful. BY DEFINITION that means you believe everything he does is UNNECESSARY, because otherwise it would mean he had no choice, and thus he would not be all powerful. Is that not patently obvious?
From my perspective, your admitting you believe God is all powerful is tantamount to the claim that you believe all his actions are unnecessary. The former necessitates the latter. By the same token, it’s essentially the same as me admitting I don’t believe in the supernatural, and thus you concluding that I don’t believe in ghosts.
Am I wrong? Do you believe there are any acts that God NECESSARILY must do? If you can name one, I will happily grant you my assumption was mistaken and I will apologize for mischaracterizing you.
“Honesty and accuracy is mandatory if you are going to represent what someone has said.”
I agree wholeheartedly. But if you make claims along the lines of saying we have no right to question God’s behavior, I do reserve the right to conclude that you are admitting you have no way of distinguishing whether he is good or evil. If you were to disagree, I would expect you to call me out and explain why I am wrong…not accuse me of some nefarious intent and then shut down all discourse. You have to have thick skin when we are arguing two vastly different viewpoints.
“My acknowledging God’s punishing of sinful people throughout the history of the Bible (and our modern history for that matter), is not an acknowledgement that He did so “unnecessarily”.”
Then show me how I’m wrong when I say admitting God is all powerful is admitting anything he does is unnecessary. I can take it without getting upset, you know that by now. I just request that you afford me the same leeway.
“I constantly tried to point out to you, that your arguments against the God of the Bible are based on your inaccurate representation of what the Bible says about God and His actions.”
But all you did was ASSERT this. You never provided any evidence for this claim at all. Ultimately, your entire argument amounted to little more than that God’s ways are not our ways (which I agree with) and we don’t have the right to question his ways (which I very much disagree with). That may be good enough for you, but it’s just not good enough for me.
“I am convinced that this is intentional. You don’t want the God of the Bible to be real, and you clearly don’t want to honestly represent Him to your viewers. As you said, you want to prosecute Him.”
It IS intentional. I’ve made that clear over and over again. Didn’t I even direct you to my video explaining exactly why I make these videos? I am an open book and I answer any question as honestly and truthfully as I can. I suspect that Christians are so used to demonizing atheists that they always assume bad intent.
It’s true that I don’t WANT the God of the Bible to be real (after all, who would want someone willing to burn the vast majority of people in hell for simply not believing in him to exist?), but more important is that I don’t BELIEVE he exists. I’ve been exposed to enough religions to know they can’t all be true…but they can all be false (as the saying goes, “Study one religion, and you’ll be hooked for life. Study two religions, and you’re done in an hour”).
“You boasted about my not giving you one Bible verse displaying God’s love”
I didn’t boast, I was simply surprised. And it wasn’t necessarily a Bible verse I asked for, but ANY example of God doing good. I’ve read both the NIV and KJV and I can’t off the top of my head think of any verse that shows God being unambiguously good. I may be wrong, because clearly I’m focused on his dark side, so I was expecting you to rattle off a few examples. It honestly surprised me when you didn’t, which is why I asked twice.
“That tells me that no matter what textual evidence you are given, you will not accept it as “love”, because you can’t.”
Now YOU are making claims about me that I haven’t stated. I’m not saying you’re wrong…but you haven’t given me anything to even consider.
“But I realized that the fact that you accused God of causing people to do evil, and that you complain that if he is all powerful he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment of sin, then nothing He did or does will be viewed as love or loving to you.”
Again you mischaracterize me (but again I won’t get upset, but merely explain), because my argument is that if God is all powerful then causing harm and suffering is UNNECESSARY. And since evil is the deliberate and unnecessary causing of harm and suffering, the logical conclusion is that God himself is evil. And we should ASSUME he is evil based on that evidence UNLESS and UNTIL he provides us with good justification for his behavior.
So it’s not that he SHOULD prevent any need for punishment for sin, but if he has justification for his behavior he SHOULD explain it to us. Otherwise, what good is having a sense of morality? Would a GOOD God want people to just worship and obey him blindly? Or would he want people to have the courage to call out perceived evil and demand an explanation? Perhaps you are fine with the former option, but I’m not.
“You did indeed trick me, you gave me assurance that your intention was to be accurate, and to honestly represent what I said, but you have not. You have applied the same method to me that you have applied to representing the Bible.”
I completely disagree, Danzil. I maintain that everything I’ve said is what I believe to be truthful and accurate. If you believe I am wrong, please correct me. But ASSERTIONS that I’m wrong are not EVIDENCE I am wrong.
“You claimed that I said: “he works in mysterious ways and he can do what he wants”. Anyone watching the discussion, and who was honest, will know that is not true.”
But that IS the gist of what you said over and over again. Do you deny that you said God’s ways are not our ways (“mysterious ways”) and that we are like clay to the potter (“do what he wants” with us)? That is exactly what I’m referring to. That’s not me being dishonest, it’s me distilling your claims down to their essential meaning. What have I taken away that changes the meaning in any significant way?
“So for you to trivialize God, you again misrepresent what is said about Him to make it seem trivial and then you attack the triviality.”
Hmm, I suspect THAT is your real objection: you don’t like my characterization of God and that irks you. Well, I’m sorry about that but it IS my honest assessment of his character. If you ask for honesty, you can’t complain when you get it.
Look, do I get upset when you mischaracterize atheists and atheism? No! I correct your misperception and will happily provide you with the evidence I have. Again, when two people have two radically different viewpoints, there will be friction, and one must have thick skin. Don’t let that be an excuse for disengaging.
“I honestly cannot see any benefit from having any more such dialogues with you. If you are only interested in content for your monetized social media, to feed your atheist supporters with, you certainly do not need me for that.”
You’re right, I don’t need that. As I noted in another post, this isn’t about feeding atheist supporters, and I certainly don’t get any revenue from my videos. You’ve seen my video explaining why I do this. My videos are mainly for fundamentalist Christians (although of course I don’t mind if other atheists use my arguments).
Well, you didn’t say an outright “no” to continuing these debates, but if you truly do not want to continue these debates, I will respect your decision. I’ll be disappointed, certainly, but I understand. Please let me know definitively, if you would.
P.S. I never received an answer to my question, what behavior would God have to commit in order for you to consider him evil?
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 3:02 pm
@Preacherteacher, you write,
Wow! That was quick! I thought it would take a little while longer for Derek’s true colors to emerge. I guess because he’s playing directly in front of his audience, he’s got to fulfill their expectations that everybody who believes the Bible to be God’s word is a drooling moron.
Derek doesn’t care about the facts. He has an agenda. And that agenda was spelled out in your first video. He admits therein that his motivation is political. He engages in atheistic apologetics with evangelistic fervor in order to increase the leverage of the Political Left. So, he does his part to discredit the Religious Right whenever he can. This is not an objective search for truth; it is rather an unholy jihad against Bible believers.
That’s why he can on one hand play the objective scientist when looking at biology, but on the other hand, he throws all careful research away when it comes to theology. In our first debate, he pretended to know what Aquinas’ arguments were but gave himself away when he claimed that they were substantively the same as the Kalam argument. I chided him for offering an opinion on a matter of which he was ignorant. If he had a shred of integrity, he would have simply said, “My bad. I made a false assumption. Please explain.” Oh, no. The “king” couldn’t do that. He instead tried to put me in the same boat by suggesting that I too would answer hypothetical questions. I thought, “Here we go again. Another know-it-all atheist who refuses to acknowledge the simplest of errors.” I went on in the same debate (look up, Even if the Universe were eternal, it would still need a cause) to point out some basic logical errors he was making. Did this self-professed lover of correction receive the flags with open arms? You can read for yourself otherwise. I resolved then and there never to debate him again. It was only after his goading and pleading that I consented (see the Tempted to Works Righteousness thread) with predictable results. Derek’s obsession with scorched earth is so intense, he wouldn’t even accept the opinion of fellow atheists who are trained in logic that the logical problem of evil is no logical problem at all.
I again resolved to drop him from debate until the Bye Bye Roe thread. All I did was complement the Court for its Dobbs decision and President Trump for nominating textualist judges. Derek couldn’t just let me have my say. He instead attacked me, so I let him have it. Please read the comments. It’s only 15 posts long, but Derek’s mendacity is on FULL display. He didn’t read Dobbs, but he commented on it anyway. He hasn’t read the Constitution, but he claims things about it that are clearly untrue. He got caught telling a baldfaced lie, but he doubled-down in denial and deflection. I’m thankful in a sense that we cannot amend our posts, because there’s no way for Derek to wiggle out of his clear dishonesty.
And to repeat: In all Derek’s diarrhea of the mouth about morality, he still TO THIS DAY does not know what the standard Christian position is on good and evil. That alone speaks volumes about his nefarious motives. If he were but 10% honest, he would have at least investigated why Christians believe what they do about morality. But you see? He doesn’t care about that. His only mission is to destroy faith in the Bible. And the reason he wants to destroy faith in the Bible is the same reason he wants to destroy the credibility of the Dobbs decision: They espouse things he doesn’t believe in. Once he gets wind that somebody is advancing something he doesn’t like, he goes into destroy mode. He doesn’t care about facts. He only cares about ideology. Facts are made to serve his purposes. They are not for his pursuit of truth.
If Derek were honest, we would not be discussing this today. One of my friends was an atheist professor of political philosophy. He is scrupulously honest and owns up to his mistakes immediately. Not Derek. He is far more interested in his reputation among his followers. He’s painted a false picture for his fans, so maintaining that picture is more important than being honest. Debating him is a totally wasted exercise. More recently, I posted a link to a skeptic’s critique of the atheist appeal to quantum mechanics. Derek claims to have read it twice, and he still didn’t understand what the skeptic was arguing! Well, Derek claims that he understood it but came away with a different conclusion. That’s incredible. Derek knew good and well what was being argued but he cannot admit that because that would entail admitting that he was wrong about a criticism of the causal principle.
The list goes on and on. It’s best for any rational thinker to avoid him. He’ll just lie, reframe and counterattack like a true jihadist.
LikeLike
October 14, 2023 at 4:08 pm
Derek said:
“The problem here is that you DID agree. You agreed that you believe God is all powerful. BY DEFINITION that means you believe everything he does is UNNECESSARY, because otherwise it would mean he had no choice, and thus he would not be all powerful. Is that not patently obvious?
From my perspective, your admitting you believe God is all powerful is tantamount to the claim that you believe all his actions are unnecessary. The former necessitates the latter. By the same token, it’s essentially the same as me admitting I don’t believe in the supernatural, and thus you concluding that I don’t believe in ghosts”
DEREK, this statement concerns me. Either you are so blinded by your reliance on the atheist sites that you gleam your ideas from, or you are not a careful thinker, or both.
You clearly are not able to see past your atheist club ego, to think that atheists define what logic is. Is this statement a new form of logic in which you can define any statement as you please? No wonder you can seem to face your errors.
You clearly do not know what God being all powerful means, and I will not attempt to educate you here. I will however include it in my response to your video on our dialogue.
LikeLike
October 15, 2023 at 2:44 am
“DEREK, this statement concerns me. Either you are so blinded by your reliance on the atheist sites that you gleam your ideas from, or you are not a careful thinker, or both.”
Danzil, I’ve been arguing with fundies and creationists for over 40 years now. My arguments largely predate the Internet as we know it, and I do not get the vast majority of my information from atheist sources. I PRODUCE arguments, I don’t copy them.
As I’ve already pointed out to you, my characterization of the God of the Bible came from reading the Bible myself, first as a child and then again as an adult. Nobody told me that God commits or condones nearly all the behaviors we ourselves use to identify evil; I figured that out by reading the Bible. This should come as no surprise, because that is what has caused so many people to leave Christianity. To quote Isaac Asimov, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
And as for me not being a careful thinker, we’ve talked enough that you know better than that. You have, in fact, more than once pointed out that you recognize I’m no idiot and that I’ve clearly thought through my ideas carefully.
Ironically, you continue to mischaracterize me by claiming I get my information atheist sites and that I have some sort of “atheist club ego,” whatever that is. Again, I can look past such mischaracterization and posturing in the interest of a valuable and entertaining exchange of ideas, and I wish you would do the same. If I were in this for some silly ego game, do you think I would be the one trying to assuage you and cut down on the drama? Can you not see that I continue to bear you no ill will or malice?
“You clearly do not know what God being all powerful means, and I will not attempt to educate you here. I will however include it in my response to your video on our dialogue.”
Good, at least there’s that. Just please don’t simply assert your claim, but provide at least some evidence for it, as I do for my claims.
I also hope you can better explain how I managed to mischaracterize you. I’ve explained my reasoning to you multiple times already. You apparently don’t accept that reasoning, but you have yet to explain exactly why. I think everything I said in my videos was a fair assessment, and I made it clear when something I was saying was just MY impression or opinion. Perhaps you should watch those portions again and reassess whether you think I said anything to deceive or mischaracterize you.
Also, I still don’t have answers for the two questions I posed to you: What behavior would God have to commit in order for you to consider him evil, and are you definitely no longer willing to continue with the debate on creationism?
Again, I bear you no ill will. Can’t you afford me the same courtesy?
LikeLike
October 15, 2023 at 3:01 am
Oh, give it a rest, Scalia. You’re so obsessed with me it’s creepy. If you have a problem with my arguments, feel free to chime in, but if all you can do is whine about previous altercations and hurl insults, you just make Christians look spiteful and vindictive. I’m more interested in having a civilized argument than watching you self-destruct.
LikeLike
October 15, 2023 at 9:34 am
Derek, the Dumbo: Are you the pot or the kettle?? Like a true narcissist, you pretend that my posts indicate my obsession with you, but you fail to realize that you keep responding to me, even when I’m not addressing you! I’m simply showing Preacherteacher the proof that you’re an arrant liar. I’m not making unprovable statements. You’ve left the record yourself.
Moreover, I’ll not seek permission slips from you when I decide to post. Get off your self-righteous high horse.
LikeLike
October 17, 2023 at 8:57 am
114. Derek you said:
“Danzil, I’ve been arguing with fundies and creationists for over 40 years now. My arguments largely predate the Internet as we know it, and I do not get the vast majority of my information from atheist sources. I PRODUCE arguments, I don’t copy them.”
Derek, “God is evil” is hardly a pre-internet argument. Your videos do not contain any original arguments that I can see, please point out to me what I missed in them that is original.
“…Nobody told me that God commits or condones nearly all the behaviors we ourselves use to identify evil; I figured that out by reading the Bible. This should come as no surprise, because that is what has caused so many people to leave Christianity. To quote Isaac Asimov, “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
Isaac Asimov predates the internet too, does he not? And I would not be surprised if that comment by him predates your first video. If so, you can see my point can you not?
Your negative take away from the Bible is not my issue with you. My issue is that you seem to be unable to be accurate and or honest in your representation of those you talk to and write about. I am amazed that you pride yourself on being a person who relies on evidence, and yet you either Fabricate evidence that does not exist, or you claim something is evidence when it clearly is not.
“And as for me not being a careful thinker, we’ve talked enough that you know better than that. You have, in fact, more than once pointed out that you recognize I’m no idiot and that I’ve clearly thought through my ideas carefully.”
Yes, I know you clearly are not an idiot, and I have indeed acknowledged several times that I believe you are sincere in what you believe about God and the Bible. But I never said that you have clearly thought through your ideas carefully. Please check our two video discussions and point out to me where I made that acknowledgement. If I am going to reprimand you for misstating what I “acknowledged”, I certainly stand ready to be rebuked for contradicting my comments about you.
You said:
“Ironically, you continue to mischaracterize me by claiming I get my information atheist sites and that I have some sort of “atheist club ego,” whatever that is. Again, I can look past such mischaracterization and posturing in the interest of a valuable and entertaining exchange of ideas, and I wish you would do the same. If I were in this for some silly ego game, do you think I would be the one trying to assuage you and cut down on the drama? Can you not see that I continue to bear you no ill will or malice?”
Fair enough, I am certainly not trying to mischaracterize you, but I AM responding to your comments, and I honestly cannot believe that you are a solo atheist. So many of your comments are the same as those I have heard prominent atheist make. And please don’t tell me that it is because the statements are inevitable given your atheist convictions.
Look at your statement, -because I believe God is all powerful, by definitions that means I believe that everything he does is UNNECESSARY, because otherwise it would mean he had no choice, and thus he would not be all powerful. Is that not patently obvious?-
Your logic is lost on me; it actually makes no sense to me. But it does fit your erroneous view of the Bible and God. And for you to make your misconception about God, the standard for how you interpret what I say about God, is not appropriate. And I mean no disrespect to you by saying so. We spent over 2 hours talking about God, and nothing I said about God registered with you, that is clear from how you represented my “acknowledgement” in your commentary on our dialogue.
It seems that you do not know what God being “all powerful” means, so you create your own meaning. You said that you have read the entire Bible, yet you saw no examples of God being loving. That could only be true if you either had not really read the entire Bible, but just stopped and formed your opinion after coming across stories that offended or appalled you, or while or after you read it, you exposed yourself to massive amounts of atheist material that dominated your interpretation of what you had read. Either way, your approach to and attitude towards the Bible, is not intelligent, it is not even reasonable, yet you ware it as a badge of honor, as if you are the standard of human morality and intelligence. Naturally, you have every right to your opinion, and to express it. But if you are going to claim to be evidenced based, you should at least acknowledge all of the evidence, and actually incorporate that evidence into your conclusion. You do not.
You said:
“Just please don’t simply assert your claim, but provide at least some evidence for it, as I do for my claims.”
If you are going to ask for evidence, then you should at least be integral about acknowledging it and engaging it, rather than pretending evidence is not evidence. Just asserting that God is evil, without bothering to actually acknowledge all that He reveals of Himself through His word is dishonest. And it is contradictory to your claim to have been seeking to know if God existed. Your reckless approach to the Bible betrays your claim to have tried to, and want to get at the truth. As I said in our dialogues, your rejections of God’s word, and your denial of the existence of God, blinds you from seeing God, and from seeing your own condition before God as a sinner.
Because of this, you will not accept any example of love that God expresses in the Bible or that anyone in the Bible ascribes to God. That is why you seemed oblivious to any such evidence in the Bible, that is, if indeed you have read it completely.
You said:
“I also hope you can better explain how I managed to mischaracterize you. I’ve explained my reasoning to you multiple times already. You apparently don’t accept that reasoning, but you have yet to explain exactly why. I think everything I said in my videos was a fair assessment, and I made it clear when something I was saying was just MY impression or opinion. Perhaps you should watch those portions again and reassess whether you think I said anything to deceive or mischaracterize you.”
Derek, you stared off your video commentary on our dialogues by saying that I believe that when God commits “unnecessary” “atrocities”, it is good. But you know full well that I never made such a statement. You chose to incorrectly interpret and represent my comments in that manner, and it “seems” like that was intentional, to make your rejections of God seem more rational than my refusal to condemn God for His actions.
Describing God’s acts as “atrocities” is your description; I only used your language to accommodate you so you would know that I was referring your claims. And I never once said anything that God ever did was “unnecessary”.
You also ignored my key responses and trivialized others with your own encapsulated version of all that I said in your video commentary, disingenuously incorporating foolish or out of context comments by other “Christians” to boost your point, while seeking to make my views seem, and even claiming that my views are irrational. That is not honest. So I will be creating my own commentary on your video commentary to show how dishonest you are as an atheist.
You said:
“Also, I still don’t have answers for the two questions I posed to you: What behavior would God have to commit in order for you to consider him evil,”
That is because you clearly are not interested in answers to such questions. You ask them so you can exploit the answers by misrepresenting them to prop up your anti-God rhetoric. But here you go.
If all God did was kill, offered no hope or chance for redemption, provided anti-moral material for us to follow, and stated that He cared nothing for us, that would be an evil God. Not that any of this means anything to you. You are not really interested is such answered questions, you clearly are building your atheist agenda and seeking to gain prominence among your fellow atheist. And I cannot pretend that you are some kind of upstanding person who truly desires to be honest and reasonable. I have watched your videos and they speak volumes about your character. So I will deal with them instead of you. Since it seems that they are a more true representation of the kind of person that you are than who you claim to be when seeking to gain the trust of others.
You said:
“and are you definitely no longer willing to continue with the debate on creationism?”
As I said, I think my time can be better creating responses to your videos than having a dialogue with you. While I did enjoy our discussions, I see that you are not at present capable of being reasoned with, and your misrepresentation of such discussions make them fruitless, other than content for your channel, and material to help you convey your misconceptions.
You said:
“Again, I bear you no ill will. Can’t you afford me the same courtesy?”
I do not bear you any ill will, not sure what gave you the idea that I do. I even told you that I loved you, that has not changed, you are still created in God’s image, but I can’t pretend that you are not devious in your activity. All I can do is provide the evidence and the information, I will leave your convictions to the God that you do not believe exists.
LikeLike
October 18, 2023 at 6:55 am
“Derek, “God is evil” is hardly a pre-internet argument. Your videos do not contain any original arguments that I can see, please point out to me what I missed in them that is original.”
Of course “God is evil” is not an original argument—some gnostics believed in an evil God two thousand years ago. One of my contributions, which I’ve not seen made by anyone else (although I would be surprised if I’m the only one who has thought of this), is actually making a list of evil behaviors and THEN going through the Bible and discovering that God committed or condoned almost all of them. That may seem like a minor distinction to you (it did to me too, at the time), but it has proved surprisingly impactful to many now former Christians. I think it lays bare just how profoundly opposite God’s morality is to ours.
Another argument I’ve not seen anyone else make is the common Christian claimed that free will exists. The Bible is filled with passages that support my position (it does surprise me that more people haven’t made this argument).
Yet another of my evil God arguments that I haven’t seen anyone make, but which I think is one of the biggest defeaters of the “good God” claim is this: An all-knowing mind could imagine ANY possible universe (including one where Lucifer didn’t rebel and where Adams and Eve didn’t disobey, A universe that MUST be possible to exist if they actually had a choice to do differently), and an all-powerful being could create that universe and avoid all the suffering and bloodshed that came afterward in the Bible. But God deliberately chose to create THIS universe, one where he knew everything would go wrong. And that makes him 100% at fault for all evil.
I could go on, but those are my main arguments I’ve not heard anyone make before.
“Isaac Asimov predates the internet too, does he not? And I would not be surprised if that comment by him predates your first video. If so, you can see my point can you not?”
No, I don’t, because the only thing I knew about Asimov pre-internet was reading some of his Foundation series. I didn’t even know he was an atheist until AFTER I started making videos.
“Your negative take away from the Bible is not my issue with you. My issue is that you seem to be unable to be accurate and or honest in your representation of those you talk to and write about.”
And that’s where I vehemently disagree with you. These are the two parts of the debate where I said things that you seem to take umbrage with:
Danzil accepts that throughout the Bible, God commits, orders or condones nearly all of the behaviors we ourselves use to identify evil persons, including murder, genocide, slavery, rape, torture, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, child abuse, animal abuse, theft, forced incest, cannibalism, betrayal, lying, megalomania, sociopathy and narcissism. He accepts that God set up Adam and Eve to fail, and that he’ll send the vast majority of humanity to hell to burn for all eternity—even if their only “crime” is to believe in other gods or no gods. Danzil just excuses all of it because it’s God who is committing it, and God can do whatever he wants and still be considered good.
…and…
As he makes clear throughout the debate, Danzil doesn’t deny that the god described in the Bible inflicts horrific atrocities on humanity, repeatedly and deliberately causing unnecessary harm and suffering, including to the most vulnerable among us and even to those who love and follow him. He just believes that when God does it, it’s good.
But right at the beginning of the debate I quoted biblical passages listing many of the atrocities God commits or condones, concluding with, “Yet your response is not to conclude that God is evil, but that all his behavior must be good because God is the one doing it and God is good.”
How did you respond? Did you object to this statement? No, you said, “If God is indeed omniscient, if he is indeed omnipotent, if he is indeed the creator, you cannot put him in the category that you would put you and I in. Everything that you said about what you would consider God doing evil deeds, if a human being did that it would be evil, no question about it. I agree with that.” Adding, “We are not on the level that we can actually challenge him.”
So…HOW did I misrepresent you? You did not deny that God commits or condones the acts we would consider evil if a human did them; in fact, as you can see, you AGREED that he does. But because he is on a level where we can’t challenge him, and you believe he is good, you think his actions must be good. Was ANYTHING I said deceitful about your position? Because if so, I don’t see it.
“But I never said that you have clearly thought through your ideas carefully.”
I seem to recall you saying something along those lines, but I concede I may be mistaken on that. I don’t have the time to go through three hours of the debate to check, so I retract that claim.
“Fair enough, I am certainly not trying to mischaracterize you, but I AM responding to your comments, and I honestly cannot believe that you are a solo atheist. So many of your comments are the same as those I have heard prominent atheist make. And please don’t tell me that it is because the statements are inevitable given your atheist convictions.”
Well, I don’t know what to say about that. I certainly am aware of many atheist arguments now, but the first few years of making my videos I wasn’t aware of most of them. I was mainly just going on what I’d read in the Bible and other Christian sources (like Jack Chick tracts and apologist arguments). Of course, since then I’ve adopted some of the common atheist arguments, but the reason they’re common is because they are effective.
And why would you disparage the source of any arguments I might make, rather than simply responding to them. If you can refute an argument, do so. Don’t just dismiss it because you think others have also made the same arguments. Do you think I’ve never heard your defense of Job before? How would you have felt if I had just dismissed it without articulating my problems with it? Our job in a debate is to respond to the arguments, not their origins.
“Look at your statement, -because I believe God is all powerful, by definitions that means I believe that everything he does is UNNECESSARY, because otherwise it would mean he had no choice, and thus he would not be all powerful. Is that not patently obvious?-
Your logic is lost on me; it actually makes no sense to me.”
It seems completely self-evident to me, so let me walk you through it: To be all powerful means there is nothing that is impossible for you (Luke 1:37 “For with God nothing shall be impossible”). That means you don’t HAVE to do anything, that EVERY action is optional, and that NOTHING you choose to do is necessary…because if you are REQUIRED to do something, that means your power is restricted. Restricted means you are not all powerful and thus subject to necessities. Is that not self-evident to you? Can you think of ANYTHING that God necessarily MUST do?
“You said that you have read the entire Bible, yet you saw no examples of God being loving.”
YOU we’re the one who claimed there are many actions done by God in the Bible that are very loving. I wanted to know what you think is an example of God doing good, so I said I would like to know one such example. Your response was to say, “You read the entire Bible and you haven’t found one loving example of what God did.” But I did NOT say I hadn’t found an example, and when I started to clarify that I wasn’t saying there weren’t things God did that are weren’t entirely evil, you interrupted and didn’t let me finish my point. In other words, you mischaracterized me. Again, in the heat of an argument that can happen, and I don’t hold it against you. I let it slide because it’s not worth blowing up the whole debate over some perceived minor nuance unless it is relevant. And again, I wish you behaved the same. You certainly didn’t seem upset about this point at the time, even joking a little about a “love fest.”
“That could only be true if you either had not really read the entire Bible, but just stopped and formed your opinion after coming across stories that offended or appalled you, or while or after you read it, you exposed yourself to massive amounts of atheist material that dominated your interpretation of what you had read.”
Again, both those claims are false. If you want to get into the biblical evidence for God being loving, I’d be happy to. And I’ve no idea what “atheist material” you’re talking about. If you have specific arguments against my points, feel free to bring them up…but just accusing me of using arguments others may have used is pointless.
“If you are going to ask for evidence, then you should at least be integral about acknowledging it and engaging it, rather than pretending evidence is not evidence. Just asserting that God is evil, without bothering to actually acknowledge all that He reveals of Himself through His word is dishonest.”
That’s not how a debate works, even an informal one. I read the Bible, found numerous examples of him committing acts that I consider evil, and concluded God is evil. Boom, that’s the gist of my argument, but I didn’t just ASSERT this conclusion, I provided you with my EVIDENCE. You yourself acknowledged that you understand my position fully. Great, I did my part.
You, OTOH, believe God is good. To counter my claims, your part is to provide evidence that shows my evidence is wrong. But you didn’t do that. All you did was repeatedly assert that god is all knowing and that there could be legitimate reasons for his behavior to bring about some greater good. Sure, that’s a possibility, but assertions are not evidence! That is precisely why I asked for examples of God being good (or loving, as you were saying)—I wanted at least SOME evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? So I wasn’t the one being intellectually dishonest here.
What I’m left with is the impression that you recognize that your arguments are rather weak. After all, I can point out examples of God’s apparent extreme callousness and cruelty: letting thousands of babies die in agony every day from causes he can alleviate, ordering his followers to commit all manner of atrocities, torturing people forever for simply not believing he exists, and so on. But your best defense of God appears to be that he knows more than we do and so perhaps he has good reasons for his behavior.
Looked at objectively, who do you think has the better argument? Is it any wonder that I’m left unconvinced? And this is supposed to be a topic where you have the distinct advantage, since you were an elder and are currently a minister who studies Christianity for a living! How do you think you would have fared debating evolution, a topic where I have the distinct advantage?
“Because of this, you will not accept any example of love that God expresses in the Bible or that anyone in the Bible ascribes to God.”
Because you provided no examples for me to even evaluate!
“And I never once said anything that God ever did was “unnecessary”.”
I’ve already responded to this multiple times, but it seems to be your central sticking point, so I’ll reiterate: God being all powerful means everything he does is unnecessary, by definition. As you can see from my earlier point, that statement is self-evident to me. Now, you may disagree that everything an omniscient being does is unnecessary (and I would like to understand why you think that), but at least you should understand that I did not intentionally mischaracterize you or deceive you in any way.
“So I will be creating my own commentary on your video commentary to show how dishonest you are as an atheist.”
I’m STILL waiting for you to give me ANY SPECIFIC example of where I exhibited any dishonesty whatsoever. I am truly baffled that you would resort to this, rather than arguing my points or requesting clarification of my points. This seems very uncharacteristic of you, based on your manner of discourse during our debate. We repeatedly gave each other opportunities to correct any misperceptions about each other’s positions…but then on this issue, suddenly all that went out the window and you accused me of being a dishonest snake who tricked you and bit you. That SO came out of left field.
“If all God did was kill, offered no hope or chance for redemption, provided anti-moral material for us to follow, and stated that He cared nothing for us, that would be an evil God.”
You don’t think ordering little girls to be taken as sex slaves—and then condoning beating them so badly they can’t even crawl back to their feet for a couple days—is anti-moral behavior?? How about killing people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath? Or sending bears to slaughter children for making fun of a bald prophet? This list of anti-moral behavior is long and repugnant!
Still, I agree that the God you describe would be an evil God, but I’m sure that you would agree that a far MORE evil God would be one who deliberately gave people hope, only to profoundly betray them in the end. And that’s what the God of the Bible does, claiming he is good even though he created a world that is essentially a machine for causing suffering, giving people hope for salvation from this world, but planning to send the vast majority of humanity to burn in hell forever, including many who think they are doing his bidding. I even articulated this in a video of mine I thought you would have checked out. But here’s the link: https://youtu.be/QKUZdQmtYFc?si=j4-qgfSY9GjDEwmo
“Not that any of this means anything to you. You are not really interested is such answered questions, you clearly are building your atheist agenda and seeking to gain prominence among your fellow atheist. And I cannot pretend that you are some kind of upstanding person who truly desires to be honest and reasonable.”
Would you be happy if I were to characterize you by saying you are trying to build up your Christian agenda to seek prominence among your fellow Christians? You did indicate that you are using this to generate material for your fellow Christians to use against atheists, didn’t you? So would you be fine with me saying I can’t pretend that you are some kind of upstanding person who truly desires to be honest and reasonable? Because it would be JUST as reasonable for me to make that claim as you are making against me… only I would never make such a crass and cynical accusation. I have given you every benefit of the doubt throughout our discussions, and despite your many attacks on me, I have endeavored to be civil and charitable. But this is how you respond? I thought Christians were supposed to be more kind and forgiving than atheists….
“As I said, I think my time can be better creating responses to your videos than having a dialogue with you.”
Well, I’m disappointed, but I look forward to continuing our discussions on my videos.
“I do not bear you any ill will, not sure what gave you the idea that I do.”
Really? You don’t think the accusations of me deceiving you, of not being honest, of being a snake that bit you, and all the other attacks on my character might have something to do with it?
“I even told you that I loved you,”
Yes, that was weird to me, but I understand that’s a thing Christians say. It’s just not the compliment you may think, though. To me, love is something precious, something earned, something deeply meaningful for those with whom you have an emotional connection. So when Christians say they love everyone, I think it devalues the word to mean little more than “I acknowledge your existence.” To quote Thomas Paine (one of our atheist founding fathers): “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.” But I know you meant well, so…thank you? I’m not even sure of the appropriate response.
“I will leave your convictions to the God that you do not believe exists.”
If you would like to argue the existence of God, I would be up for that too.
LikeLike
October 18, 2023 at 7:57 am
“Yes, that was weird to me, but I understand that’s a thing Christians say. It’s just not the compliment you may think, though. To me, love is something precious, something earned, something deeply meaningful for those with whom you have an emotional connection. So when Christians say they love everyone, I think it devalues the word to mean little more than “I acknowledge your existence.” To quote Thomas Paine (one of our atheist founding fathers): “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.” But I know you meant well, so…thank you? I’m not even sure of the appropriate response. ”
I certainly understand, because you have no concept of what Biblical love is, (and because yes, many “religious” Christians just use such statements to feel pious), you must rely on emotional love, that is not what I meant. But since you cannot understand given your chosen convictions, I am satisfied that I am on record stating it. Also note, for someone who claims not to be deeply influenced by atheist material, you reference then quite often.
I should say that as I continue this discussion with you here. (You seem unwilling to leave). I will provide my commentary on you in my video responses to yours. This platform is clearly being used by you to negatively influence any Christians here that you can. So as you may expect, I will not pretend here that you are a kindly soul just seeking to be heard and understood. I will be responding as I feel merits your comments and agenda.
LikeLike
October 18, 2023 at 8:36 am
Here is our second dialogue with my added comments in text form.
https://youtu.be/QiW2i07wNa0
LikeLike
October 18, 2023 at 9:50 am
“Also note, for someone who claims not to be deeply influenced by atheist material, you reference then quite often.”
I happen to be a fan of quotes I find clever and poignant, and I’ve collected quite a few in the past five years or so. But that doesn’t mean they influence me so much as they reflect my values and thoughts.
But if you want to assume all my arguments come from other atheist sources, as you seem determined to do, feel free to do so. Either way, they are relevant arguments that need to be addressed. And if some of my arguments you’ve heard before, then I would think you should have already formulated answers to them. I’ve yet to see any, though.
“I should say that as I continue this discussion with you here. (You seem unwilling to leave).”
Because you keep responding. 😉 And although you can sometimes be insulting and condescending, unlike Scalia you at least seem willing to engage and try to defend your views in a mostly civil tone. That’s rare to find in Christian apologists, so I appreciate it.
“This platform is clearly being used by you to negatively influence any Christians here that you can. So as you may expect, I will not pretend here that you are a kindly soul just seeking to be heard and understood. I will be responding as I feel merits your comments and agenda.”
Do you really think that is a fair assessment? Christians are constantly evangelizing and attempting to negatively influence atheists, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you object? Come on, Danzil. What do you think you have been attempting to do with me all this time? A debate is a two-way street, not just an opportunity for you to preach to the “spiritually bereft.” And from my perspective, I’m trying to help Christian extremists find a better way.
(When one is used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. That’s another quote I appreciate.)
Regardless, I hope the evidence I provided you in my previous post makes it clear that I did not misrepresent you. And I hope you see that all the rapport and goodwill we’d generated and that you blew up in an instant isn’t justified.
LikeLike
October 18, 2023 at 12:52 pm
Dumbo writes,
I guess the lying gene never quits working in Derek the Dingbat. I was civil until you proved yourself dishonest. I have no respect for liars, and I will not pretend that you’re arguing in good faith when it is obvious to everybody, including yourself, that you are not.
And it’s not at all “rare” to find civility in Christian apologists. Indeed, they are overwhelmingly gracious when they debate, until their so-called “gracious” opponents start lying their heads off and show themselves to be the jihadist cutthroats that they are. Respect is earned, not demanded. Like I said, if you were but 10% honest, you would long ago have acted like it. It’s not like you’re some 17-year-old punk (you’re an older punk) without worldly experience. There are myriad ways you could have engaged in honorable debate without conceding defeat. I’ve interacted with honorable atheists. You’re not one of them.
LikeLike
October 20, 2023 at 5:03 am
Derek 118
You said:
“….One of my contributions, …. is actually making a list of evil behaviors and THEN going through the Bible and discovering that God committed or condoned almost all of them…. but it has proved surprisingly impactful to many now former Christians. I think it lays bare just how profoundly opposite God’s morality is to ours.”
First, you should know that your “boast” of contributing to the “de-conversion” of what you call former Christians is premature, and in-fact, very unlikely. What you have accomplished if anything in that vein is to expose the true state of those people. Although you ego may not like to face it, people have been coming and going from the “religion” of Christianity since its inception. And that is true of all “religions” including the religion of atheism.
But in your prideful zeal to “expose” the “evil” of God, you have actually exposed your dishonesty, ignorance, pride, and spiritual depravity. And this I will demonstrate in my replies to your videos.
You said:
“Another argument I’ve not seen anyone else make is the common Christian claimed that free will exists….”
That’s because you “think” it is original when it is not, people have argued against the reality of human free will for a very long time. That you are not aware of this is interesting.
You said:
“The Bible is filled with passages that support my position (it does surprise me that more people haven’t made this argument).”
Apparently, you either have serious short term memory issues, or you simply don’t care about acknowledging when you are corrected about Bible passages. In our discussion I informed you that none of the Bible passages you used to support your claim that the Bible teaches that God controls everything humans do. And that you had a habit of not investigating the text before using them to support your claims. I think this happens because you use texts that you see or hear other atheist use in their attacks on the Bible. You trust their claims and their honesty, so you just use their accusations as your own without bothering to confirm the meaning of the text.
You said:
“Yet another of my evil God arguments that I haven’t seen anyone make, but which I think is one of the biggest defeaters of the “good God” claim is this: An all-knowing mind could imagine ANY possible universe …. But God deliberately chose to create THIS universe, one where he knew everything would go wrong. And that makes him 100% at fault for all evil.”
Again, your arrogance is staggering, to think that you are the sole person who came up with the idea of God being to blame for Evil in the world. And your above example is flaws because of your arrogance and ignorance about God and the meaning of All-knowing.
You keep denying that you are ignorant about the biblical God, and you keep demonstrating it by your borrowed arguments. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that because God is “all knowing”, that God “avoided” creating a reality in which everything was perpetually perfect and no harm or pain was suffered by anyone. That is your and other rebellious human centered thinkers idea, who thinks our reality is all about you. It is not. What exist is not about humanity and nothing you say or think will change that fact. If you really read the entire Bible instead of taking your information from atheist material, you would know this. God did not “avoid” it; He simply created reality as He wanted to and for His reasons. And in this “only” reality, what happened to, with, and because, happened as a result of thoughts and actions by all involved.
Seeking to blame God for foolish, evil or rebellious acts against Him, and the resulting punishments and suffering that followed is typical depravity thinking. But it will not change the fact that you and I, and all who live and lived, will give an account to God for what we have or have not done. And no amount of hypothetical thinking, fantasizing, pontificating and philosophizing will change that.
You simply use such arguments as an effort to deceived people into rejecting God, so that people like you can provide them with direction, as a God replacement. But then without God, our reality is suddenly just fine, even though the same evil exists, only now humans are the cause, and that is suddenly a minor issue. Interesting.
You said:
“I could go on, but those are my main arguments I’ve not heard anyone make before.”
I doubt that you have not heard them before, why you claim not to have is curious.
To my point:
“Isaac Asimov predates the internet too, does he not? And I would not be surprised if that comment by him predates your first video. If so, you can see my point can you not?”
You replied:
“No, I don’t, because the only thing I knew about Asimov pre-internet was reading some of his Foundation series. I didn’t even know he was an atheist until AFTER I started making videos.”
And we are supposed to believe you…why?
To my statement:
“..My issue is that you seem to be unable to be accurate and or honest in your representation of those you talk to and write about.”
You replied:
“And that’s where I vehemently disagree with you. These are the two parts of the debate where I said things that you seem to take umbrage with: …”
I will respond to this here after I have published my reply to your commentary on our discussions. I have decided not to allow you to use this forum to get me to point out all of your issues so that you will have time to prepare for my replies to your thinking.
LikeLike
October 20, 2023 at 5:22 am
Derek 118 conclusion
You said:
“And why would you disparage the source of any arguments I might make, rather than simply responding to them. If you can refute an argument, do so. Don’t just dismiss it because you think others have also made the same arguments. … Our job in a debate is to respond to the arguments, not their origins.”
What in my comment indicated that I “disparage” your source? I simply pointed out that you were not as original as you claimed, and that your reliance on atheist sources has apparently prevented you from being honest about the issues, or representing them accurately.
You said:
“It seems completely self-evident to me, so let me walk you through it: To be all powerful means there is nothing that is impossible for you (Luke 1:37 “For with God nothing shall be impossible”).”
Here is an example of your apparent negligence, arrogance and or ignorance. Since you are not interested in really checking into terms and meaning, but you only want to establish your discrediting accusations, you are not concerned about context. As an English major, I find that interesting.
The context is not “is God capable of doing anything He wants to?”, The context is the impossibility of a women having a child without having had sexual relations with a man. “For with God, Nothing shall be impossible” is stated in that context. If you had really read the entire Bible as you said, you would have known that the Bible Says that it is “impossible for God to lie” Hebrews 6:18.
But even your “all powerful” definition is skewed:
You continued by saying:
“That means you don’t HAVE to do anything, that EVERY action is optional, and that NOTHING you choose to do is necessary…”
Please explain to me in what line of logic that “Options” mandates “non-necessity”? Because God decides something is necessary to do, and does it, does not mean He is “required” to do it.
As I told you, your placing God in a human category is a straw man. So your straw-man effort has been exposed. As an English major, I find it interesting that you are unable to identify your errors in comprehension, applications, associations and interpretations when it comes to the Biblical text and the God of the Bible. It is either due to ignorance or intentional deception.
You said:
“because if you are REQUIRED to do something, that means your power is restricted. Restricted means you are not all powerful and thus subject to necessities. Is that not self-evident to you?”
Since God is neither “required” nor “restricted”, your argument is moot. Such are human terms that only adequately apply to humans and created things.
You asked:
“Can you think of ANYTHING that God necessarily MUST do?”
Yes, God must be God, He cannot change. If you had read the entire Bible, you would know this. (Malichi 3:6). But if you then try to claim that this is therefore a “restriction”, you are not understanding God. God is who God is, and attempting to apply human terms to him in order to convey His accountability as an evil being is ignorant, and blasphemous.
You said:
“YOU we’re the one who claimed there are many actions done by God in the Bible that are very loving. I wanted to know what you think is an example of God doing good, so I said I would like to know one such example. Your response was to say, “You read the entire Bible and you haven’t found one loving example of what God did.” But I did NOT say I hadn’t found an example, and when I started to clarify that I wasn’t saying there weren’t things God did that are weren’t entirely evil, you interrupted and didn’t let me finish my point. In other words, you mischaracterized me.”
So you confirm what Scalia said about you, you have a problem acknowledging when you are caught in a lie. (And you call that mischaracterizing you?) Your question indicated nothing about your affirmation of anything God did that was loving, it only indicated you did not believe so. The viewers can judge for themselves.
You said:
“Again, in the heat of an argument that can happen, and I don’t hold it against you. I let it slide because it’s not worth blowing up the whole debate over some perceived minor nuance unless it is relevant. And again, I wish you behaved the same. You certainly didn’t seem upset about this point at the time, even joking a little about a “love fest.”
I was not upset and there is nothing to hold against me. It was my expressed surprise that you as someone who claimed to have read the whole Bible, questioned any acts of love by God in the Bible, that prompted you to reluctantly acknowledge it in a halfhearted way before I cut you off. But as I said, the viewers can decide.
To my point:
“If you are going to ask for evidence, then you should at least be integral about acknowledging it and engaging it, rather than pretending evidence is not evidence. Just asserting that God is evil, without bothering to actually acknowledge all that He reveals of Himself through His word is dishonest.”
You replied:
“That’s not how a debate works, even an informal one. I read the Bible, found numerous examples of him committing acts that I consider evil, and concluded God is evil. Boom, that’s the gist of my argument, but I didn’t just ASSERT this conclusion, I provided you with my EVIDENCE. You yourself acknowledged that you understand my position fully. Great, I did my part.”
No, that is not the entire situation, you did not refute my point about your mishandling of the texts, you did not refute my point that someone in the Bible, Job, whom you acknowledge as one whom God committed an “atrocity” against, did not hold that view. Even during his complaints about what happened to him, he never referred to God as “Evil” or charged God foolishly. But of course, you are more moral than Job. And your prosecutor approach will not allow you to be honest.
You said:
“You, OTOH, believe God is good. To counter my claims, your part is to provide evidence that shows my evidence is wrong. But you didn’t do that. All you did was repeatedly assert that god is all knowing and that there could be legitimate reasons for his behavior to bring about some greater good. Sure, that’s a possibility, but assertions are not evidence!”
It is interesting how you can create definitions about and applications for what “all power” means, but you can’t grasp what I said about what you ignored or rejected about God that demonstrates his not being capable of evil. Even now you pretend that I did not provide you with evidence that your arguments were wrong, but since you really don’t believe that God exists of claim not to, nothing I say would matters. So, it’s not that I did not provide evidence, it’s that you don’t care about evidence, you only care about “prosecution”.
You repeated:
“That is precisely why I asked for examples of God being good (or loving, as you were saying)—I wanted at least SOME evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, right? So I wasn’t the one being intellectually dishonest here.”
I think “you protest too much” on this issue, I think you did not know, the viewers will decide.
You said:
“What I’m left with is the impression that you recognize that your arguments are rather weak. After all, I can point out examples of God’s apparent extreme callousness and cruelty: letting thousands of babies die in agony every day from causes he can alleviate, ordering his followers to commit all manner of atrocities, torturing people forever for simply not believing he exists, and so on. But your best defense of God appears to be that he knows more than we do and so perhaps he has good reasons for his behavior.”
Your repeating what you consider God’s evil acts over and over, will not make you correct. It does however demonstrate your true character. When I create my video responses to your videos that contain this kind of argument, I will also discuss why you do it, and why you repeat it. Then I will return here and address this behavior of yours.
You said:
“Looked at objectively, who do you think has the better argument? Is it any wonder that I’m left unconvinced? And this is supposed to be a topic where you have the distinct advantage, since you were an elder and are currently a minister who studies Christianity for a living! How do you think you would have fared debating evolution, a topic where I have the distinct advantage?”
First, I do not study Christianity for a living, nor am I a paid minister. I minister without cost. And second, you will not draw me into a dialog on evolution by suggesting that I would not fare well if I did. I am certain that your knowledge of Evolution’s proof is just as bad as your Bible knowledge, and I will prove it when I respond to your evolution videos. From what I have seen of them so far, you are indeed dishonest at worst and ignorant at best on the issues of evolution. But I am intrigued by your arrogance. And saddened that anyone would allow such as you to discourage them from believing in God.
You said:
“I’m STILL waiting for you to give me ANY SPECIFIC example of where I exhibited any dishonesty whatsoever. I am truly baffled that you would resort to this, rather than arguing my points or requesting clarification of my points. This seems very uncharacteristic of you, based on your manner of discourse during our debate. We repeatedly gave each other opportunities to correct any misperceptions about each other’s positions…but then on this issue, suddenly all that went out the window and you accused me of being a dishonest snake who tricked you and bit you. That SO came out of left field.”
Interesting that you see nothing that you did and are doing, as an English major, again, I find that difficult to believe. And for you to act as if I am hallucinating everything is intriguing. If you simply deny having done anything wrong, and claim you are being unjustly criticized, then you certainly would not have to defend your behavior. In my replies to your video commentary, I will demonstrate your dishonesty, and then we can continue this discussion here.
You said:
“You don’t think ordering little girls to be taken as sex slaves—and then condoning beating them so badly they can’t even crawl back to their feet for a couple days—is anti-moral behavior?? How about killing people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath? Or sending bears to slaughter children for making fun of a bald prophet? This list of anti-moral behavior is long and repugnant!…”
I will be addressing those comments in your videos in my reply. It would be a waste of my time and efforts to do so here first. I will demonstrate you dishonest approach to the text.
You asked:
“Would you be happy if I were to characterize you by saying you are trying to build up your Christian agenda to seek prominence among your fellow Christians?”
You have that right, and it would not make me unhappy if you did so. People who know me know better, and those who don’t will be free to believe as they will. That is not my concern.
You said:
“You did indicate that you are using this to generate material for your fellow Christians to use against atheists, didn’t you? So would you be fine with me saying I can’t pretend that you are some kind of upstanding person who truly desires to be honest and reasonable? Because it would be JUST as reasonable for me to make that claim as you are making against me…”
Yes I did make that statement and I stand by it. There is a difference between you and I Derek,
my goals are upstanding because I am honest and reasonable, you are not. You are clearly seeking to discredit a God that you claim you do not believe exists, because you are competing with Him and His people who want to place moral restraints on you and your kind that you don’t like. You want YOUR standards to be the norm, and you are using poor “Christian” or so called Christian examples, (of which there are many), and a false depiction of God, to promote your agenda. I have every right to expose it.
You said:
“only I would never make such a crass and cynical accusation. I have given you every benefit of the doubt throughout our discussions, and despite your many attacks on me, I have endeavored to be civil and charitable. But this is how you respond? I thought Christians were supposed to be more kind and forgiving than atheists….”
Again, as an English major, your claimed ignorance is baffling. You actually think that by being non-confrontational in video dialogues, (which you have a motive not to be), you exonerate your dishonesty, misrepresentation, and your clear agenda as demonstrated and promoted in your many videos? You think that the many unsound things that you have said here on this platform are civil and charitable? It is apparent that you have a double standard in which you are permitted to do what you consider others doing wrong.
You said:
“Really? You don’t think the accusations of me deceiving you, of not being honest, of being a snake that bit you, and all the other attacks on my character might have something to do with it?”
That was my honest view of your commentary video after our discussion, I said nothing that indicates ill will. How does giving my honest view of what you did, show ill will?
You said concerning my statement that I love you:
“Yes, that was weird to me, but I understand that’s a thing Christians say. It’s just not the compliment you may think, though.”
It was not meant to be a compliment; it was a statement of truth,
You said:
To me, love is something precious, something earned, something deeply meaningful for those with whom you have an emotional connection. So when Christians say they love everyone, I think it devalues the word to mean little more than “I acknowledge your existence.” To quote Thomas Paine (one of our atheist founding fathers): “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”
And therein lies the problem, you do not understand Christian love, because you do not understand the God of the Bible. You only know of the love you described above, you should Invest more time in the study.
LikeLike
October 22, 2023 at 8:54 am
I have too many arguments with too many theists going on at the same time, so I’ll just try to trim our arguments down in the interest of saving time (although, admittedly, I tend to get detailed).
A major contention you seem to have is the part of the debate where I asked for an example of God being loving. So here you go: Starting at 25:25, these are the relevant quotes:
Derek: “Actions speak louder than words.”
Danzil: “There are a lot of actions in the Bible that are loving.”
Derek: “Like what?”
Danzil: “There are a lot of actions in the Bible that are very very loving.”
Derek: “I would like to know of one example, somewhere. A loving example. That would be nice.”
Danzil: “A loving example. Okay. All right. All right.” … “You said you read the entire Bible and you haven’t found one loving example that God did.”
Derek: >Winces at that mischaracterization of his statement. “I’ve seen some things that are not—I’m not going to say they are not entirely—
Danzil: “Okay, let me finish my point—”
Derek: “—evil, but—”
Danzil: “—about God…”
First off, I asked you for an example of God being loving. I wanted to know what YOU would consider loving, because there are PLENTY of instances in the Bible of CLAIMS God is loving. But as I said, actions speak louder than words, and I suspected that you would present mere claims to be good examples.
But you didn’t give me any examples, did you? Instead, you looked like a deer caught in the headlights, and then you deflected by deliberately rephrasing my words to mean something very different. Instead of giving me an example of God being loving, you said, “you read the entire Bible and you haven’t found one loving example that God did.” That is most clearly NOT what I said…yet you have the gall to get all upset and spiteful at a perceived instance of me mischaracterizing you? You outright LIED about what I’d said just SECONDS before, yet I’M the deceitful one here? Give me a break. I’M the one willing to overlook misperceptions by simply correcting them and moving on (which I tried to do by starting to say that some of God’s behavior isn’t entirely evil, but you interrupted and didn’t give me a chance to make it clear you had mischaracterized me). Not only do you seem incapable of understanding that people can have different perceptions than yours (I clearly consider a lack of necessity an inevitable consequence of omnipotence, whereas you do not) without intending malice. I would think someone well-versed in the Bible would know better:
• Matthew 7:5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Well, you didn’t answer the question during the debate, but I did get my answer when you displayed examples on your annotated video of the debate. And as I expected, your examples are almost exclusively people SAYING God is loving, not SHOWING he’s loving. Your first four passages, for instance:
• Deuteronomy 7:12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors.
• Deuteronomy 10:15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your ancestors and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations—as it is today.
• Deuteronomy 10:18-19 He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
• Deuteronomy 23:5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you.
Do you really think that is compelling evidence AT ALL that God is loving and good? Don’t you think an evil God would have absolutely no problem claiming he’s good? That’s why it’s ACTIONS that matter, not words. The problem for you is that even God’s BEST actions—like healing the blind and the lame (you could have used Matthew 21:14, “The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them,” even though that was technically Jesus)—lose their good and loving luster when you think it through…because God is the one who created the blind and the lame in the first place. See what I mean?
Throughout the Bible, every “good” and “loving” action God does is tainted by the realization that he SET UP the very situations that allowed him to ride in on a white horse to “help” someone. It starts right there in Genesis, where God put Adam and Eve in the Garden with the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and told A&E not to eat from the tree. That means they couldn’t possibly have known it was evil to disobey God or believe the serpent until AFTER they ate the fruit.
The biggest difference between us in regard to the contents of the Bible is that you are quick to absolve God of ALL his behavior, no matter how depraved and evil it appears to anyone reading the Bible objectively. You START with the premise that God is good, and thus everything he does—no matter how cruel or harmful—MUST ultimately lead to good. So you don’t see that God set up Adam and Eve to absolutely fail; you see it as their fault that they disobeyed. And correct me if I’m wrong, but if you were convinced that a voice in your head telling you to kill your family and neighbors was God, you would do it, right? This is why biblical literalists cannot be trusted to be good people. So many of them willingly commit atrocities, and do it with a smile, secure in the belief that they are doing God’s will…yet with no means of knowing whether it’s God’s will, Satan’s will, or just schizophrenia.
To me, there is nothing more immoral than someone who commits atrocities…except perhaps someone who regards the one committing atrocities as good. Thus, when I read the Bible, I START with the premise that to be good, one must do good and not commit evil. Thus, I don’t see God behaving like a good being, but instead like a monster who creates EVERY situation that he then gets to “punish” in some of the most brutal ways imaginable. I’m not going to surrender my responsibility to call out evil behavior. Nor should you.
Yeah, I get it that you don’t believe those behaviors are evil, but only because it’s God who is committing them. I’m fully cognizant that it’s possible to find ways to regard God as good—all you have to do is start with the premise that he’s good, then you can justify all sorts of unethical behavior to prop up that narrative, from using imprecision in the original translations to simply trusting that he knows what he’s doing.
I can’t throw away my moral compass on the assertion you make that it’s POSSIBLE to interpret God’s actions as good, or just simply ASSUME they’re good. That is NOT how morality works, that’s how authoritarianism works! If God creates a drought or a disease that causes tens of thousands of children to die in agony every single day, it would be wrong for me to assume your God is good DESPITE that. The most rational stance is to assume God is evil BECAUSE OF that. You—or God—need to provide UNAMBIGUOUS evidence that his behavior was NECESSARY…but as I said, being all powerful BY DEFINITION means nothing you do is necessary.
The vast majority of people—Christians included—have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into research to find the nuances that allow one to possibly excuse God’s behavior. So don’t tell me to “do my research” and not to question God’s behavior, because such a requirement is absurd. If your God wants EVERYONE to be saved, as the Bible says, but he requires people to study the intricacies of Ancient Greek and Hebrew translations in order to determine he’s not evil, then he’s an idiot and a failure…because that only guarantees that the vast majority of humanity ends up going to hell—which is the exact OPPOSITE of saving everyone.
• 1 Timothy 2:3-4 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, WHO WANTS ALL PEOPLE TO BE SAVED and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
But that is not the worst problem for Christianity. Despite your odd insistence that I get my information from other atheist sources (as if atheists can’t reach the same conclusions simply from reading the Bible, and instead must follow some sort of “official atheist talking points” some original atheist came up with!), my “Infinite Universes Problem” for God is my own theological conclusion. And to me (and many of those I’ve helped free from biblical literalism), this is an ultimate defeater for Christianity. As a reminder:
If God exists and is ALL KNOWING, then by definition he could imagine any of an infinite number of universes, each with its own Earth and populated with the same people, except that they make different decisions in each universe. So, for example, in one universe you could choose to walk by a homeless person, while in another universe you could choose to buy him a sandwich, and in yet another universe you could choose to attack him, and so on. If God has an infinite mind, then by definition he could imagine a universe where everything turns out exactly how he wants. And this option would be true even if free will exists, since he could imagine a universe where everyone just happens to use their free will to make the “right” decisions.
Furthermore, if God is ALL POWERFUL, then by definition he could CREATE that exact universe. If he wanted Lucifer to stay a model angel, he could have chosen to create one of the worlds where Lucifer decides not to rebel. If he wanted Adam and Eve to live in the Garden of Eden forever, he could have chosen to create one of the worlds where they decide not to eat the fruit, and so on. Nobody would make the “wrong” decisions, regardless of whether they have free will.
But that’s not what happened in the Bible, is it? Instead, God DELIBERATELY chose to create one of the universes where he KNEW everything would go wrong. He chose one where he knew Lucifer would rebel and Adam and Eve would disobey. He chose one where he knew the world would fill up with wicked people whom he would then drown in a flood. He chose one where he knew he would end up sending billions and billions of people to burn forever in hell for transgressions as small as simply not believing he exists:
So what does the Infinite Universes problem for God mean? It means that God himself is ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for the existence of evil because this is the EXACT universe HE chose to create. Instead of choosing to create one where everyone happens to make the right decisions, he chose one where he KNEW humanity would make the wrong decisions right from the beginning, resulting in thousands of years of bloodshed, torture, rape, slavery and more. Yet he blames US for HIS choices. He has people tortured forever for doing exactly what HE decides they will do. So our universe itself is evidence that IF God exists, he is a monster who wants to see massive suffering, and he clearly does not have our best interests at heart. I don’t think there is any way for Christians to escape this conclusion, not without giving up at least one of the following three claims:
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
There are plenty of other problems with Christianity, but to me this Infinite Universes Problem is THE most damning because it not only logically contradicts the notion of a good, loving God, but it negates any of the arguments Christians use to defend him. So inevitably they end up—like you—saying either that God knows more than we do or that he works in mysterious ways, but these are just evasive non-answers used to short-circuit critical thinking. They do nothing to actually address the problem. You’ll have to do a LOT better than claim things like Job didn’t blame God for making a pointless bet with Satan that ruined his life…or Christianity will continue to hemorrhage followers.
I suspect you realize my arguments are far more sound and compelling to anyone who isn’t already a believer than anything you’ve presented so far. I don’t expect you to admit this, since you are clearly committed to the whole Christian mythology, but if you can be honest with yourself and actually read the Bible with an open mind and no preconceived notions, I think you’ll come to the same conclusions I have.
Okay, as usual I went on far longer than intended, so I’ll end here. But I’ll leave you with a poignant quote:
“A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones … who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!” — Mark Twain
LikeLike
October 22, 2023 at 4:46 pm
@Preacherteacher, Derek’s “infinite universes” argument was thoroughly refuted in the Tempted to works righteousness thread. I know you don’t need it to continue your debate with Dumbo, but his continual referencing of it displays his delusional tendencies.
LikeLike
October 24, 2023 at 1:16 pm
Derek My reply to your # 120
You said:
“I happen to be a fan of quotes I find clever and poignant, … But that doesn’t mean they influence me so much as they reflect my values and thoughts. …. And if some of my arguments you’ve heard before, then I would think you should have already formulated answers to them. I’ve yet to see any, though.”
Giving answers is not my problem. Figuring out how to get you to acknowledge how you create your own meaning for words, how you inaccurately represent Bible texts while claiming that you strive to be accurate, and how you shift from your claim to be accurate, to being a prosecutor when it is pointed out to you that you have incorrectly presents a text, or you just say that you were being literal to stick it to the fundies. You handle your Bible convictions the same way that Evolutionists handle science. Not matter what evidence is presented to prove you wrong, you just deny you are wrong, and insist that the evidence is not evidence. That is unfalsafiability.
You said:
“Because you keep responding. 😉 And although you can sometimes be insulting and condescending, unlike Scalia you at least seem willing to engage and try to defend your views in a mostly civil tone. That’s rare to find in Christian apologists, so I appreciate it.”
Alright, there you go being nice and reasonable again, that’s how you bit me the last time. Lol
But seriously, if having an intelligent discussion with decent Christians who at least shows some indication of trying to be intelligent and respectful is you desire, then you should consider improving your “representation of what they actually argued” skills. As an English major, that should not be difficult to do.
As I said, I too enjoyed our conversation, not only because we were friendly with each other, but also because during our dialogues, I was getting the impression that you were trying to understand my perspective accurately. But when I watched your video commentary on our dialogue, it indicated that you were not interested in honest representation, but in appealing to your atheist audience. It did not seem like you even tried to be fair to me. Like you said of your representation of the Bible, you just wanted to prosecute. Having viewed your videos, I should have known that was going to be your only take away. So now I know better. I know what to expect and I will prepare accordingly.
You said:
“Do you really think that is a fair assessment? Christians are constantly evangelizing and attempting to negatively influence atheists, but when the shoe is on the other foot, you object?”
You misunderstand me, I do not object, I think it is important that you are heard, and by Christians. I just want you to be clear about your agenda, it is clearly not to just have a discussion to determine which view is correct, or which is basted on the best evidence, it is evangelistic, to de-convert Christians. I’m cool with that; I’m just going to do my best to make sure that our response is also available.
You said:
“Come on, Danzil. What do you think you have been attempting to do with me all this time? A debate is a two-way street, not just an opportunity for you to preach to the “spiritually bereft.” And from my perspective, I’m trying to help Christian extremists find a better way.”
Again, I am cool with two-way street debate, but please don’t try to snow me with your “I must rescue extremists” claim. You are out to silence all conservative Christians, not just extremists.
You sad:
“(When one is used to privilege, equality feels like oppression. That’s another quote I appreciate.)”
I like it, I agree, but it is not applicable here or to me.
You said:
“Regardless, I hope the evidence I provided you in my previous post makes it clear that I did not misrepresent you.”
It did not, but I admire your effort, but don’t feel bad, you don’t “seem” to be convinced by anything I say either. I guess we both will just have to keep trying.
You said:
“And I hope you see that all the rapport and goodwill we’d generated and that you blew up in an instant isn’t justified.”
It may seem like it is worse than it actually is, as I said, I enjoyed our dialogue, at least there, there was no grand standing, and a seeming effort to get at truth. My concern AGAIN, is with how you present what I said to your audience.
I am still open to another dialogue, but it will have to be delayed for a while until I finish creating my response to your videos. Then I will be happy to proceed with our Evolution dialogue. For the record, I do not think you are an evil person, or even a bad person. I kind of like you as a person, and as I said, I love you as a creation in God’s image, even though you don’t get it.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 12:36 pm
“Derek’s “infinite universes” argument was thoroughly refuted in the Tempted to works righteousness thread. I know you don’t need it to continue your debate….”
Thanks Scalia, I will certainly look that thread up. However as you can see from our dialogue, and discussions here,infinite universes, is the least of his problems.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 1:33 pm
“Derek’s “infinite universes” argument was thoroughly refuted in the Tempted to works righteousness thread.”
On the contrary, I’ve yet to find a single argument from any apologist that can refute it. It always boils down to some version of “God works in mysterious ways” or “God knows more than you do so shut up,” both of which are non-answers. Hardly what any reasonable person would call a “thorough refutation.”
But you can’t even manage that. Instead of providing evidence like an adult, you just call people names and tell others to go read some thread or another. What a snowflake…but hey, you do you, girl.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 2:00 pm
Dumbo the Dingbat says,
The man who claims that I’m obsessed with him keeps replying to me. Now, for anybody past kindergarten, I provided the evidence via reference to a previous debate. And I am more than happy for anybody who reads this blog to assess the data for yourself.
Tempted to works righteousness. Dumbo had introduced his stupid “infinite worlds” argument and my comprehensive reply is in Post 362. Continue reading through Post 396. Dingbat gets confused and attacks his own position. He fights tooth and nail what he eventually concedes. He desperately tries to shoehorn his biblical argument when I told him from the beginning that I was addressing the logical argument initially. And he gets caught in another lie.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 2:01 pm
Actually, Post 361 is where my reply begins.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 10:44 pm
Derek Says: 125 pt.1
(Note: to save space I will limit your full comments)
You said:
“A major contention you seem to have is the part of the debate where I asked for an example of God being loving. So here you go: Starting at 25:25, these are the relevant quotes:……
Derek: >Winces at that mischaracterization of his statement….”
So here is another good example of you not being honest, and trying to control the damage done to your slip up. “Winces at that mischaracterization of your statement? Really?
Aside from the fact that I pointed out that you had this “no matter what proof you show, it won’t be proof to me” syndrome, I am willing to let the honest viewers who are not zealot atheist, judge for themselves. As I said, you protest too much. I think you know you are exposed.
You continued:
“First off, I asked you for an example of God being loving. I wanted to know what YOU would consider loving, because there are PLENTY of instances in the Bible of CLAIMS God is loving. But as I said, actions speak louder than words, and I suspected that you would present mere claims to be good examples.”
Derek, you are an English major, why are you playing this game? All of a sudden you include your “Claim verses proof” tactic. That was fine when it came to statements in the Bible that were so far uncorroborated in secular history. I could understand atheist skepticism there. But now even God’s claim to love or do a loving thing is put in that category? Talk about a desperate effort to avoid “falsification”. Wow man. You may be worse than I thought. So much for trying to falsify your own view.
“actions speak louder than words”? You do know that the “words” are a part of an historical narrative don’t you? A historical narrative that documents the “actions” that were being “claimed”. But then as I said, no evidence will do for your kind.
Then you continued your damage control by trying to make it seem like you were really the victim. Interesting read.
You said:
“But you didn’t give me any examples, did you? Instead, you looked like a deer caught in the headlights, and then you deflected by deliberately rephrasing my words to mean something very different.”
Derek, you do know that the video is still up for everyone to see don’t you?
You continued your damage control:
“Instead of giving me an example of God being loving, you said, “you read the entire Bible and you haven’t found one loving example that God did.” That is most clearly NOT what I said…yet you have the gall to get all upset and spiteful at a perceived instance of me mischaracterizing you? You outright LIED about what I’d said just SECONDS before, yet I’M the deceitful one here? Give me a break.”
Derek, this is sad, is this supposed to be some kind of reverse psychology tactic? Well it won’t work. But it is a good example of my stated concerns about you. And what others have complained about you. This is not even a major issue for you to expose your true colors on, and yet you go all out to protect your lack of integrity, I’m curious to know why? You could have let this one go and put this energy into a more potent issue. Or is it that you have been exposed on too many points and now have to clean up the mess to maintain the appearance of literary and spoken integrity?
You continued:
“I’M the one willing to overlook misperceptions by simply correcting them and moving on (which I tried to do by starting to say that some of God’s behavior isn’t entirely evil, but you interrupted and didn’t give me a chance to make it clear you had mischaracterized me).”
Derek please give this up, it is not a good look.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 10:56 pm
Derek my reply to 125 pt.2
You continued:
“Not only do you seem incapable of understanding that people can have different perceptions than yours (I clearly consider a lack of necessity an inevitable consequence of omnipotence, whereas you do not) without intending malice. I would think someone well-versed in the Bible would know better:”
Wow, this just gets more and more interesting. I do indeed know better. Did I zing you on your made up conclusions? That was more than a different perception and you know this, but I guess you can’t let that go either, it looks too bad on you. This again to me is evidence that I will not be able to trust your integrity in dialogue. Because you will act cordial, but report deviously.
You continued:
“Well, you didn’t answer the question during the debate, but I did get my answer when you displayed examples on your annotated video of the debate.”
Did you forget that you had interrupted me, and I said I had to finish my point, and you then took the discussion in another direction? I guess none of that matters because only your prosecution is important to you.
You continued:
“And as I expected, your examples are almost exclusively people SAYING God is loving, not SHOWING he’s loving. Your first four passages, for instance:
• Deuteronomy 7:12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors…(partial quote to save space)”
It is interesting that you could not resist proving me right, you are not looking for and intelligent discussion, you are only looking for opportunities to exploit any interactions that you can get with Christians. Since as I said, no evidence would be accepted as evidence to you. And you ignore your own educational training as an English major to butcher clear proof to distort it as non-proof.
You then proceed to suggest to me a Bible text that I should have used, (I was very selective of the texts I chose), as if I really needed and atheist’s suggestion, who does not believe the Bible is God’s word. Your nerve continually surprises me.
You said:
“The problem for you is that even God’s BEST actions—like healing the blind and the lame (you could have used Matthew 21:14, “The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them,” even though that was technically Jesus)—lose their good and loving luster when you think it through…because God is the one who created the blind and the lame in the first place. See what I mean?”
Yes, I see what you mean, that is why I have been trying to get you to see that what you “mean” is incorrect. But it is apparent that you are not interested in being shown your erroneous thinking. You are quite content in believing that you have an accurate grasp of all things biblical. You have little or no understanding about God, the Bible or Christianity, because you think that what you have gleaned from other atheist and ignorant Christian sources, is sufficient to make you an authority on the Bible. So the best I can do for you is to just refute the claims in your videos and let the viewers decide for themselves.
(continued in next post).
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 10:59 pm
Derek my reply to 125 pt 3
You continued:
“Throughout the Bible, every “good” and “loving” action God does is tainted by the realization that he SET UP the very situations that allowed him to ride in on a white horse to “help” someone. It starts right there in Genesis, where God put Adam and Eve in the Garden with the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and told A&E not to eat from the tree. That means they couldn’t possibly have known it was evil to disobey God or believe the serpent until AFTER they ate the fruit.”
Derek, you really should stop trying to convince us that you are a responsible, reliable presenter of the Bible. Your arrogant, confident proclamations about the Bible text, continually shows that you simply apply your atheistic convictions to what you read in the Bible. So please stop pretending that you are being accurate in your presentation.
You continued:
“The biggest difference between us in regard to the contents of the Bible is that you are quick to absolve God of ALL his behavior, no matter how depraved and evil it appears to anyone reading the Bible objectively.”
No Derek, the biggest difference between us concerning the Bible, is that you don’t believe it is God’s word, and thus you have no respect for its content, you simply use it to try to discredit God. I have demonstrated this.
You continued:
“You START with the premise that God is good, and thus everything he does—no matter how cruel or harmful—MUST ultimately lead to good. So you don’t see that God set up Adam and Eve to absolutely fail; you see it as their fault that they disobeyed.”
Derek, you are an English major, and you can’t get right what we discussed? No, I start with the premise that God is Sovereign, All knowing and all powerful. And as such, He is not in our category, and cannot be viewed as we are. You are an English major so I know you understand my arguments. But your dishonesty and need to prosecute the God that you refuse to believe in, or pretend not to believe in, to protect your atheism, will not allow you to admit that you are wrong.
You continued:
“And correct me if I’m wrong, but if you were convinced that a voice in your head telling you to kill your family and neighbors was God, you would do it, right?”
Derek, as I tried to tell you, you are crossing your intellectual wires on this. What God did in the Old Testament was a different time and different system of government. You should know this as an English major who has read the entire Bible. To juxtapose such Old Testament actions of God telling people to kill others, on modern day society, is not good English application of context. To answer your foolish hypothetical voice, the answer is no, because I know that God would not do that today. He clearly has other ways to take out people whose time is up.
You continued:
“his is why biblical literalists cannot be trusted to be good people. So many of them willingly commit atrocities, and do it with a smile, secure in the belief that they are doing God’s will…yet with no means of knowing whether it’s God’s will, Satan’s will, or just schizophrenia.”
Your ignorance of God has you continually lumping Him in with crazy, satanic and ignorant biblical fanatics, all to bolster your arguments against God. When Straw-man tactics are your primary weapon, it is clear that you really don’t have any argument. I am a biblical literalist and yet I know the difference between Old Testament history and today’s society. Apparently you as an English major don’t. That is sad.
LikeLike
October 25, 2023 at 11:03 pm
Derek my reply to 125 pt.4
You continued:
“To me, there is nothing more immoral than someone who commits atrocities…except perhaps someone who regards the one committing atrocities as good. Thus, when I read the Bible, I START with the premise that to be good, one must do good and not commit evil. Thus, I don’t see God behaving like a good being, but instead like a monster who creates EVERY situation that he then gets to “punish” in some of the most brutal ways imaginable. I’m not going to surrender my responsibility to call out evil behavior. Nor should you.”
Derek, your ego is leaking all over the place. In your world view, all of the “evil” that you attribute to God is done by humans only. And as such, it cannot possibly have any real moral meaning, since in your world view you all are products of a variety of natural accidents over billions of years. Thus there is no such thing as real morality. You are using God as a tool to get attention by playing the moral man. It is sad, but effecting with people who are not willing or able to think critically.
You continued:
“I can’t throw away my moral compass on the assertion you make that it’s POSSIBLE to interpret God’s actions as good, or just simply ASSUME they’re good. That is NOT how morality works, that’s how authoritarianism works!….”
Derek, there is no real morality if God does not exist. Your “moral compass is an illusion and you know it. Why are you borrowing from my world view to attack my world view? Please try to allow your English training to kick in.
You continued your charade:
“The vast majority of people—Christians included—have neither the time nor the inclination to delve into research to find the nuances that allow one to possibly excuse God’s behavior. So don’t tell me to “do my research” and not to question God’s behavior, because such a requirement is absurd. If your God wants EVERYONE to be saved, as the Bible says, but he requires people to study the intricacies of Ancient Greek and Hebrew translations in order to determine he’s not evil, then he’s an idiot and a failure…because that only guarantees that the vast majority of humanity ends up going to hell—which is the exact OPPOSITE of saving everyone. “
No, Derek, the Bible is quite sufficiently translates for anyone who was not blind, and rebellious to be able to understand what I understand. It is written on a sufficiently low level where anyone can grasp it. It is you and your kind that need to muddy the water so that you confuse the issues in the eyes of those who are willing to listen to you. I do appreciate you letting your true nature be exposed here. That’s the snake that I have been warning about.
You said:
“But that is not the worst problem for Christianity. Despite your odd insistence that I get my information from other atheist sources (as if atheists can’t reach the same conclusions simply from reading the Bible, and instead must follow some sort of “official atheist talking points” some original atheist came up with!), my “Infinite Universes Problem” for God is my own theological conclusion. And to me (and many of those I’ve helped free from biblical literalism), this is an ultimate defeater for Christianity.”
And you and they are fools. You if you believe it, and think that you will get me to believe you have never heard or seen that “infinite universes” before you adapted it as your own, and they for being willing to trust you to lead them to enlightenment. You seem to be proud of your influence over fools, but you have only influenced those who were not God’s people.
You continued:
“As a reminder: If God exists and is ALL KNOWING, then by definition he could imagine any of an infinite number of universes, each with its own Earth and populated with the same people, except that they make different decisions in each universe. So, for example, in one universe you could choose to walk by a homeless person, while in another universe you could choose to buy him a sandwich, and in yet another universe you could choose to attack him, and so on. …. I don’t expect you to admit this, since you are clearly committed to the whole Christian mythology, but if you can be honest with yourself and actually read the Bible with an open mind and no preconceived notions, I think you’ll come to the same conclusions I have.”
There you go again, proving me and others right about you. Repeating your rhetoric over and over here, as if by doing so will make it any less foolish, and hoping to kill the faith of someone who is reading it, only proves your agenda and my assessment of you. You are not really concerned about saving people from their faith in God; you are a servant of Satan, seeking to turn away people from their faith, because you hate the idea of being accountable to God. But Derek, you will meet Him in Judgement one day, maybe sooner than you think. And our conversations are going to stand as a witness against you.
LikeLike
October 26, 2023 at 12:31 am
Derek, your quote of Mark Twain speaks volumes.
Here is my reply:
Twain said concerning morals:
“But I’d rather teach them than practice them any day. “Give them to others”–that’s my motto.”- Speech, “Morals and Memory,” 7 March 1906.
“As by the fires of experience, so by commission of crime you learn real morals. Commit all crimes, familiarize yourself with all sins, take them in rotation (there are only two or three thousand of them), stick to it, commit two or three every day, and by and by you will be proof against them. When you are through you will be proof against all sins and morally perfect. You will be vaccinated against every possible commission of them. This is the only way.” – Speech, “Theoretical and Practical Morals,” 8 July 1899.
“Morals are not the important thing–nor enlightenment–nor civilization. A man can do absolutely well without them, but he can’t do without something to eat. The supremest thing is the need of the body, not of the mind and spirit.”
– Mark Twain, a Biography
“Moral creatures!” Now discard that slang. We haven’t any morals — & never had any that weren’t brummagem. We don’t know any more about morals than the Deity knew about astronomy when he wrote Genesis. And don’t you keep on intimating that we have intervals wherein we are not liars. There aren’t any such. ..- Letter to Joseph Twichell, 7 September 1902
Either you are skitsafrenic, delusional, ignorant of Mark Twain, or all of the above. Or just a victim of your atheist mentors.
LikeLike
October 29, 2023 at 11:09 am
Your comment below is emblematic of your problem in all of your posts and your debate performance:
“Derek, you really should stop trying to convince us that you are a responsible, reliable presenter of the Bible. Your arrogant, confident proclamations about the Bible text, continually shows that you simply apply your atheistic convictions to what you read in the Bible. So please stop pretending that you are being accurate in your presentation.”
Do you see the problem? In case you haven’t noticed, the reason your arguments aren’t at all convincing is not because I’m not listening to you, it’s because you continue to provide NO EVIDENCE to support your arguments. I provide you with the step-by-step process formulating my arguments, even quoting the appropriate Bible verses when necessary, but all you do is resort to ad hominems, claiming I am arrogant, inaccurate, calling me a liar, and so on. The use of ad homonyms is a fallacious argument, and thus meaningless. You make post after post explaining nothing and accomplishing nothing.
“No Derek, the biggest difference between us concerning the Bible, is that you don’t believe it is God’s word, and thus you have no respect for its content, you simply use it to try to discredit God. I have demonstrated this.”
Of course I have no respect for the content of the Bible! Why should I? Why should anyone? Do you have respect for the content of the Bhagavad-Gita? Or the Urantia Book? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Satanic Bible? No? Then why should your religion have any special dispensation? Just because someone believes in something sincerely doesn’t give it automatic justification for respect, and the Bible is no exception. And since the God in your Bible commits and condones virtually all the behaviors used to identify evil persons, why in the world should I regard it with any respect?
But this argument isn’t about whether God deserves respect, it’s about whether he behaves like an evil monster. You constantly try to derail that point by questioning my motives, attacking my character, claiming I’m interpreting the direct words of the Bible wrong, trying to shame me, and so on—ANYTHING to deflect from the fact that your God behaves in a way that is consistent with an evil God.
“No, I start with the premise that God is Sovereign, All knowing and all powerful. And as such, He is not in our category, and cannot be viewed as we are.”
You ALSO claim God is good, and I’m reasonably certain you start with that premise as well. You also seem to think that just because something is not in our category, we can’t judge its behavior. Well, if we encountered magical demons that wanted only to torture humans to death, they also would not be in “our category,” but you can bet we would judge their behavior, and with good reason. Your God is no different.
“But your dishonesty and need to prosecute the God that you refuse to believe in, or pretend not to believe in, to protect your atheism, will not allow you to admit that you are wrong.”
LOL! How in the world do you come to THAT irrational conclusion? If the Bible were full of quotes of God doing only things that protect the well-being of all life, then I would conclude he is a GOOD God…but I still wouldn’t believe he exists because there is no credible evidence for his existence. In other words, my atheism has nothing to do with whether God is good or evil, only about the evidence for his existence. Period.
I have been very clear to you what my argument is, and that is that IF the god of the Bible exists, it is necessarily evil. And the reason I do this is because it is the most convincing argument to rational Christians who are willing to pay attention to what the Bible actually says. If there weren’t so many Christians attacking science and trying to force their ugly form of morality on society, I wouldn’t bother arguing with Christians at all. That’s because I firmly believe in freedom of religion…as long as nobody tries to force other people to follow any religious dogma.
“Derek, as I tried to tell you, you are crossing your intellectual wires on this. What God did in the Old Testament was a different time and different system of government. You should know this as an English major who has read the entire Bible. To juxtapose such Old Testament actions of God telling people to kill others, on modern day society, is not good English application of context. To answer your foolish hypothetical voice, the answer is no, because I know that God would not do that today. He clearly has other ways to take out people whose time is up.”
So you claim we can’t know the mind of God, but YOU know the mind of God well enough to confidently assert he would not order you to kill your child? And yet you accuse ME of arrogance and inaccuracy in how I interpret the Bible? You’re doing what all Christians do, picking and choosing the interpretations that fit with your own concept of your God, rather than look at his behavior. Pluck the log out of your eye.
“Your ignorance of God has you continually lumping Him in with crazy, satanic and ignorant biblical fanatics, all to bolster your arguments against God.”
You still don’t seem to understand that THEY believe the same thing of you, that YOU are the misguided, ignorant Bible fanatic. The Bible does not come with a key to identify how everything should be interpreted. EVERYTHING is a personal interpretation of the Bible, and the proof of that is in the tens of thousands of Christian denominations that ALL believe they follow the “one true Christianity” and accuse other denominations of being “crazy, satanic and ignorant biblical fanatics.” My own interpretation of an evil God is no less valid than your own. And the biblical evidence fits my interpretation of an evil God much more easily than your interpretation of a good God, because I don’t need to twist anything in the Bible to try to make it seem God is morally justified. There’s nothing in the Bible an evil God could not have written.
“Derek, your ego is leaking all over the place. In your world view, all of the “evil” that you attribute to God is done by humans only.”
Nope. I’ve made a special point of only choosing behaviors that God himself either condoned or committed. You really didn’t notice that?
“Derek, there is no real morality if God does not exist. Your “moral compass is an illusion and you know it. Why are you borrowing from my world view to attack my world view?”
How many times do I have to explain my definitions of good and evil? Once we establish that well-being is good and deliberately and unnecessarily causing harm or suffering is evil, then it is possible to make objective observations about what causes one or the other. THAT is what I used to attack your worldview so successfully.
Your problem here is that you seem to think that God’s morality is the only “real” morality, even though you can’t demonstrate that to be true. All you can do is assert it on the basis of “might makes right.” Over and over again you accept his cruel “morality” over behavior that promotes well-being, and you do so on the basis of “God being sovereign” and knowing more than we do. That is so pitiful, and none of that allows you to escape the fact that in the Bible God behaves in such a way that it deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. So you twist yourself in knots trying to claim that an all-powerful being is still subject to necessity in regards to how he treats others, but all you are doing is making it clear that you have abdicated your moral compass for a moral monster, no matter how hard you try to deflect and tap dance around it.
“No, Derek, the Bible is quite sufficiently translates for anyone who was not blind, and rebellious to be able to understand what I understand.”
LOL! And you accuse me of being arrogant? Oh yes, I am SURE you are one of the select few who happens to have chosen the “one true Christianity.” Again, the very fact that your version of Christianity is only one of tens of thousands of versions is OVERWHELMING evidence that your claim that the Bible is easily understood by anyone who isn’t blind or rebellious is clearly false.
And that reminds me of the most failed prayer in Christianity, made by Jesus himself:
John 17:20-23
I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Oops.
“And you and they are fools. You if you believe it, and think that you will get me to believe you have never heard or seen that “infinite universes” before you adapted it as your own, and they for being willing to trust you to lead them to enlightenment.”
Really? Okay, then, I defy you to find anyone who came up with this idea before me. If you are so certain that all my ideas had to have come from someone else, rather than the inevitable conclusions of reading the Bible’s claims of an omniscient and omnipotent God, then find me someone else who came up with it.
“You seem to be proud of your influence over fools, but you have only influenced those who were not God’s people.”
Way to make your claim unfalsifiable using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy! But that’s what all false religions must do: make their claims unfalsifiable, because making them falsifiable would expose them as untrue.
“There you go again, proving me and others right about you. Repeating your rhetoric over and over here, as if by doing so will make it any less foolish, and hoping to kill the faith of someone who is reading it, only proves your agenda and my assessment of you.”
And there YOU go again. Instead of actually walking me through my argument and showing where I made a mistake, you try to deflect by making some other irrelevant accusation. The fact is, you can’t rationally argue against my Infinite Universes Problem for God. That is why I consider it a defeater for Christianity. You can only escape it by retreating to the usual useless Christian non-answers of claiming God works in mysterious ways and we don’t have a right to question him. It’s your only hope for avoiding cognitive dissonance.
“You are not really concerned about saving people from their faith in God; you are a servant of Satan, seeking to turn away people from their faith, because you hate the idea of being accountable to God.”
More ridiculous Christian logic. For me to not believe in God because I hate the idea of being accountable to him makes as much sense as not believing in gravity because I hate the idea of being accountable for jumping out of a building. I seek to “turn people from their faith” in order to HELP them, not to hurt them. EVERY person who has written to me to say my arguments are what helped them lose their religion has considered it a POSITIVE change. That is why they write me to let me know. Watch my recent video on that subject and pause it to read the messages for yourself. For so many, it is like blinders have fallen away to reveal a much more wonderful and precious existence than anything Christianity has to offer. They no longer have to twist their minds trying to reconcile what the Bible says about God with what they know is evil.
LikeLike
October 29, 2023 at 10:44 pm
And again, Dumbo’s “infinite universes” argument was thoroughly refuted in the previous debate (linked above).
LikeLike
October 31, 2023 at 8:29 pm
Derek, my pt. 1 reply to your 137 post
You said:
“Your comment below is emblematic of your problem in all of your posts and your debate performance: (You quote me and then you said)- Do you see the problem? In case you haven’t noticed, the reason your arguments aren’t at all convincing is not because I’m not listening to you, it’s because you continue to provide NO EVIDENCE to support your arguments. I provide you with the step-by-step process formulating my arguments, even quoting the appropriate Bible verses when necessary, but all you do is resort to ad hominems, claiming I am arrogant, inaccurate, calling me a liar, and so on. The use of ad homonyms is a fallacious argument, and thus meaningless. You make post after post explaining nothing and accomplishing nothing.”
That is because you are not interested in applying your English degree to honest examination and response. You simply claim that I have provided not evidence just ad hominems. But you do know that this is a public forum and anyone can read it, you also know that the videos of our dialogue are still public, so anyone can review and see if I did or did not. I will provide more as I respond to your published videos. The fact that you deny that I have proven your misapplication, misinterpretation over all disrespect for the Bible text, only serves to prove my earlier point, that you ae not interested in honesty, you are enamored with your own believed brilliance, and you either can’t or you refuse to acknowledge your errors or faults.
You said:
“Of course I have no respect for the content of the Bible! Why should I? Why should anyone? Do you have respect for the content of the Bhagavad-Gita? Or the Urantia Book? Or the Book of Mormon? Or the Satanic Bible? No? Then why should your religion have any special dispensation? Just because someone believes in something sincerely doesn’t give it automatic justification for respect, and the Bible is no exception. And since the God in your Bible commits and condones virtually all the behaviors used to identify evil persons, why in the world should I regard it with any respect?”
Fair enough, but you should have respect for English, for context, for honest representation, for integrity. What is it with you atheist, that you claim to be free thinkers who possess a higher standard for truth then us Biblical Christians, and yet you demonstrate the opposite by your dishonest verbal and literary content. One dear former atheist friend of mine is on record stating that the dishonesty of his fellow atheist’s was a major factor in his conversion to Christianity.
You said:
“But this argument isn’t about whether God deserves respect, it’s about whether he behaves like an evil monster. You constantly try to derail that point by questioning my motives, attacking my character, claiming I’m interpreting the direct words of the Bible wrong, trying to shame me, and so on—ANYTHING to deflect from the fact that your God behaves in a way that is consistent with an evil God.”
Amazing, there you go again, betraying your training in English, and again proving that you are not interested in accuracy or honesty, only prosecuting. Please take a deep breath and look again at my statement that you quoted and responded to.
“No Derek, the biggest difference between us “CONCERNING THE BIBLE”, is that “YOU DON’T BELIEVE IT IS GOD’S WORD” , and thus “YOU HAVE NO RESPECT FOR ITS CONTENT”, you simply use it to try to discredit God. I have demonstrated this.”
Do you notice how you just ignored what I actually said, and made up your own interpretation, and then attacked it? Even someone who flunked English could have got this right. I’m telling you Derek, there is something else going on here with you besides getting at truth. You consistently misrepresent my statements and my key arguments.
Note your response to my next statement:
I said: “No, I start with the premise that God is Sovereign, All knowing and all powerful. And as such, He is not in our category, and cannot be viewed as we are.”
You replied: “You ALSO claim God is good, and I’m reasonably certain you start with that premise as well. You also seem to think that just because something is not in our category, we can’t judge its behavior. Well, if we encountered magical demons that wanted only to torture humans to death, they also would not be in “our category,” but you can bet we would judge their behavior, and with good reason. Your God is no different.”
Alright, take another deep breath, and let go over my statement again. While I certainly do believe that God is good, you will not find me arguing that point as my starting premise, I was focused on refuting your claim that God was “evil”. Second, you will not find anywhere that I argued that because “something” is not in our category, we can’t judge “its” behavior. Nor did I argue that because “someone” is not in our category, we can’t judge their behavior. So your example above is moot. (Just what kind of English degree did you get?). In fact, my argument was not that you could not judge God’s behavior, it was that you were not qualified to pass and accurate judgement on Him, since you were not on his level or in His category. Either you understood what I said and lied about it, or your English degree has not served you well. Either way, you have a problem. As I said, you are so obsessed with your need to prosecute God, the Bible and Christianity, that you are unable to control yourself.
LikeLike
October 31, 2023 at 8:33 pm
Derek, this is pt.2 of my reply to your 137 post
To my statement:
“But your dishonesty and need to prosecute the God that you refuse to believe in, or pretend not to believe in, to protect your atheism, will not allow you to admit that you are wrong.”
You replied:
“LOL! How in the world do you come to THAT irrational conclusion? If the Bible were full of quotes of God doing only things that protect the well-being of all life, then I would conclude he is a GOOD God…but I still wouldn’t believe he exists because there is no credible evidence for his existence. In other words, my atheism has nothing to do with whether God is good or evil, only about the evidence for his existence. Period.”
If indeed you actually do not believe God exists, then you are not an agnostic atheist, you are an atheist. Period. But in addition to that, the evidence for God’s existence is not the problem, the problem is your dishonesty and determination to deny the evidence. You reject the abundance of historical documented evidence of the Bible and the manuscripts it is translated from. You ignore or deny the evidence of nature and the solar system. You deny the evidence for God in chemistry, genetic, biology, Geology, Astronomy, and mathematics. So you don’t have an evidence problem, you have a heart and mind problem. Aka SIN and rebellion. I also notice how your frantically try to disconnect “your atheism” from everything accept the existence of God issue. But you strive to do so in vein, you know it is woven into everything about you.
You said:
“I have been very clear to you what my argument is, and that is that IF the god of the Bible exists, it is necessarily evil. And the reason I do this is because it is the most convincing argument to rational Christians who are willing to pay attention to what the Bible actually says.”
Indeed you have been clear as to what your argument is, that has never been my complaint. My complaint is that you have used misinformation, disinformation and out-right lies to make your arguments. I am a rational Christian, as any reasonable person could see, but you are dishonest if you claim you are paying attention to what the Bible actually says. I have demonstrated this.
You continued:
“If there weren’t so many Christians attacking science and trying to force their ugly form of morality on society, I wouldn’t bother arguing with Christians at all. That’s because I firmly believe in freedom of religion…as long as nobody tries to force other people to follow any religious dogma.”
That’s it Derek, let all that atheist agenda ooooze out. This is what you are all about, so man up and stop pretending to be some magnanimous bastion of morality, trying to save the ignorant religious fundies from their religious bondage.
You detest the efforts of Christians trying to defend Biblical morality, but you are fine with telling your lies about Christianity, and trying to get your atheistic ideas into laws and government policies. How hypocritical of you. You are in Germany, why don’t you limit your efforts to Germany? Because you hate Christian morality, and you want to replace it with atheistic immorality or non-morality. And you are targeting ignorant Christians or professing Christians, with bogus anti-God rhetoric to help you accomplish your agenda. As I said, don’t try to con us with your “I’m trying to save ignorant fundies” scam.
To my statement:
“Derek, as I tried to tell you, you are crossing your intellectual wires on this. What God did in the Old Testament was a different time and different system of government. You should know this as an English major who has read the entire Bible. To juxtapose such Old Testament actions of God telling people to kill others, on modern day society, is not good English application of context. To answer your foolish hypothetical voice, the answer is no, because I know that God would not do that today. He clearly has other ways to take out people whose time is up.”
Note your scattered thinking reply:
“So you claim we can’t know the mind of God, but YOU know the mind of God well enough to confidently assert he would not order you to kill your child? And yet you accuse ME of arrogance and inaccuracy in how I interpret the Bible?”
Again, you are demonstrating your abandonment of you English training in favor of your atheist agenda that blinds you from basic context. If you were not so blinded by your atheism, you would have noticed that I nowhere made the claim that “you can’t know the mind of God”. I argued that you ignore or reject what God has revealed about Himself. So yes, I know him well enough to know that he won’t, because I am not arrogant, I accept His revelation. It’s all in that book that you claim to have read, and pretend that you know so well.
You said:
“You’re doing what all Christians do, picking and choosing the interpretations that fit with your own concept of your God, rather than look at his behavior. Pluck the log out of your eye.”
Derek, your effort to use the Bible against me is humiliating you, please stop. Matthew 7:3-5 does not apply to me since I am not doing a wrong that I am accusing you of doing. Again, you are ignoring your English training. I can’t speak for other Christians on this point, but I can speak for me. You think I am being selective and avoiding God’s behavior, but as I have been telling you, I take all of His behavior and His revealed revelation into account, while YOU choose to follow the standard atheist approach, which is to borrow from other atheist claims and claim they are your own, or charry pick what you think are the worst acts of God and present them as your evidence that God is evil. The only reason you can’t see what you are doing, is because of your atheist dedication.
LikeLike
October 31, 2023 at 8:37 pm
Derek, this is my pt.3 to your 137 post.
I said:
“Your ignorance of God has you continually lumping Him in with crazy, satanic and ignorant “biblical fanatics”, all to bolster your arguments against God.”
You replied:
“You still don’t seem to understand that THEY believe the same thing of you, that YOU are the misguided, ignorant Bible fanatic.”
Wrong again Derek, I do understand, but you need to stop generalizing to bolster your illusion of correctness and be more specific. Who are “they”. Give me an example of “they” Christian who think I am crazy, satanic and an ignorant biblical fanatic.
You said:
“The Bible does not come with a key to identify how everything should be interpreted. EVERYTHING is a personal interpretation of the Bible,”
Fascinating, you are an English major and you can’t understand hermeneutics. While some people will certainly choose to use personal interpretation to satisfy their selfish desires, that is hardly proof that there are no guidelines for interpreting historical texts. Standard hermeneutical rules go long was in helping sincere people to understand how to interpret the Bible. The Bible also provides a number of “keys” to explain how things should be interpreted. But naturally, to understand them people have to be literate, and they have to “study”. An atheist who was not blinded by his atheism would know this. So much for your claims to be “defenders of truth, rational and logic”.
You continued:
“and the proof of that is in the tens of thousands of Christian denominations that ALL believe they follow the “one true Christianity” and accuse other denominations of being “crazy, satanic and ignorant biblical fanatics.”
Wrong again Derek, that only proves that there are many people who claim to be Christian who are not, and many who are Christians that are foolishly influenced by bad teaching and ideas that are not supported by the Bible. As an English major, you know full well that people get all kinds of things wrong because of ignorance, arterial motives, intentional deception and propaganda. So your pretense of soundness on this issue is itself dishonest.
You continued:
“My own interpretation of an evil God is no less valid than your own. And the biblical evidence fits my interpretation of an evil God much more easily than your interpretation of a good God, because I don’t need to twist anything in the Bible to try to make it seem God is morally justified. There’s nothing in the Bible an evil God could not have written.”
That is because you are blinded by your atheism, and your English training cannot help you. Otherwise you would see clearly why your interpretation is indeed not valid. You don’t need to “twist” when you can “ignore”. The fact that you admit here that there is “nothing in the Bible that an evil God could not have written”, proves that your question about where did God do good in the Bible was a tautology at best, and a revelation of your ignorance of the Bible at worse. Either way, you screwed up.
To my statement:
“Derek, your ego is leaking all over the place. In your world view, all of the “evil” that you attribute to God is done by humans only.”
You foolishly admitted:
“Nope. I’ve made a special point of only choosing behaviors that God himself either condoned or committed. You really didn’t notice that?”
Brilliant reply Derek, only it is not intelligent at all. I did indeed notice your “special point”, that is “my point”. Your “special point” is bogus, since you don’t believe God exists, thus all the evil that you claim that He did, was done by evil humans. Are you so obsesses with discrediting the God you think does not exist, that you can’t remember where the real blame lies in your confused world view? Please let that English degree kick in.
LikeLike
October 31, 2023 at 8:40 pm
Derek this is my pt. 4 to your 137 post.
To my statement and question:
“Derek, there is no real morality if God does not exist. Your “moral compass is an illusion and you know it. Why are you borrowing from my world view to attack my world view?”
You replied:
“How many times do I have to explain my definitions of good and evil? Once we establish that well-being is good and deliberately and unnecessarily causing harm or suffering is evil, then it is possible to make objective observations about what causes one or the other. THAT is what I used to attack your worldview so successfully.”
Okay, Derek, take a breath, and try this again. Because you have described what you believe is morality to me, is not a defense for your worldview’s claim on that morality. Not that I fully accept your definition of morality, but that is irrelevant, since your worldview cannot account for morality. As for your success in attacking my worldview, well, that is illusionary. You have successfully tricked the uninformed, and the poor thinkers that your attack is effective, but not Biblical Christian thinkers.
You continued:
“Your problem here is that you seem to think that God’s morality is the only “real” morality, even though you can’t demonstrate that to be true. All you can do is assert it on the basis of “might makes right.”
Sad, Derek, yet again you misrepresent our discussion by making accusations you can’t prove. Nothing that I have said in our dialogues amounts to “might makes right”. But again, your atheist delusions prevent you from using your English training to see this. My argument has always been that, “Godness”, Creator, Sovereignty, Omniscience and Omnipotence is what makes God’s actions right. Not simply Might. (So I have demonstrated it to be true). You atheist rely heavily on ignorant and inaccurate, simplistic ideas about God to forge your attacks against God. That is not a good look for an English major, or for one who claims to be a free thinker dedicated to truth.
You continued:
“Over and over again you accept his cruel “morality” over behavior that promotes well-being, and you do so on the basis of “God being sovereign” and knowing more than we do.”
Aaaaa, no Derek, I do not accept God’s cruel morality, because He has none. Nor do I accept your view that submission to God is counter to what you refer to as “well-being”. And I base it on not only God being sovereign and knowing more than we do, but also on the fact that He is holy, He is Creator, and has every right to handle His creation as He deems appropriate. I am intrigued by how even now you are driven to “twist” anything I say to make it seem ridiculous or less rational. For someone who claims to be standing on solid intellectual and moral grounds, you sure rely on a lot of tactic to help your cause.
You continued:
“That is so pitiful, and none of that allows you to escape the fact that in the Bible God behaves in such a way that it deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering.”
What is pitiful Derek, is the fact that you really think you can sit in judgement over the God that created you, that you don’t even think exists, or claim not to. And that you actually think you know what is Necessary and not necessary about what He does.
You continued:
“So you twist yourself in knots trying to claim that an all-powerful being is still subject to necessity in regards to how he treats others,”
No Derek, the only “twisting” going on here is your “twisting” of my arguments. I do not use “necessity” when referring to how God treats humans. Do you notice how you have to create straw men of what I argue to then attack them to seem like you are right? Why does a defender of truth have to do that?
You continued:
“but all you are doing is making it clear that you have abdicated your moral compass for a moral monster, no matter how hard you try to deflect and tap dance around it.”
Now Derek, who is really doing the tap dancing here. Who is cherry picking, and denying and ignoring, and pretending? I am willing to let the readers decide.
To my statement:
“No, Derek, the Bible is quite sufficiently translates for anyone who was not blind, and rebellious to be able to understand what I understand.”
You replied:
“LOL! And you accuse me of being arrogant? Oh yes, I am SURE you are one of the select few who happens to have chosen the “one true Christianity.” Again, the very fact that your version of Christianity is only one of tens of thousands of versions is OVERWHELMING evidence that your claim that the Bible is easily understood by anyone who isn’t blind or rebellious is clearly false.”
Aaaa no Derek, please, let you English training help you out here. If lack of accurate understanding or application was mandatorialy due to insufficient ease of understanding provided, then we would all have excuses for everything. I have already addressed this argument above so there you have it. “Oh, but you continued to embarrass yourself by again trying to teach me the Bible:
You said:
“And that reminds me of the most failed prayer in Christianity, made by Jesus himself: John 17:20-23 I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Oops.”
Please Bishop Derek, tell me where in that text does it say, complete unity of theological agreement. Or perhaps, no disagreements, or maybe perfect harmony of doctrine. Ooops indeed. You never did bother to study the text did you? You just borrowed it from you fellow atheists, and believed that it was the perfect evidence of a Jesus failed prayer. What you missed in the very text that you quoted, is that Jesus tells you what he is talking about “those who WILL believe in me”, WILL BE joined with Jesus and the Father in unity. That unity is not based on perfect theological agreement with each other, it is based on faith and submission to Jesus as Savior. You would know this if you had actually read the entire Bible, and applied your English training rather than your atheist convictions. Ooops indeed.
LikeLike
October 31, 2023 at 8:45 pm
Derek, this is my pt.5 to your 137 post
To my statement:
“And you and they are fools. You if you believe it, and think that you will get me to believe you have never heard or seen that “infinite universes” view before you adapted it as your own, and they for being willing to trust you to lead them to enlightenment.”
You replied:
“Really? Okay, then, I defy you to find anyone who came up with this idea before me. If you are so certain that all my ideas had to have come from someone else, rather than the inevitable conclusions of reading the Bible’s claims of an omniscient and omnipotent God, then find me someone else who came up with it.”
If I do Derek, will you admit that you could be wrong on the other matters that I challenged you on here? The idea is called the “multi verse” Derek, and it has been around for a while now. It is popular among atheist evolutionists because they knew that our universe is far too fine tuned to be compatible with evolution, so they had to come up with an intellectual patch that would make our universes feasible as an evolutionary event. Additionally Norman Gisler, in his book “When Skeptics Ask” 1990, pg. 69-74 addresses the multiple possible universes idea in response to atheistic critics. So while you are unique because God made you different form all other humans, you are not uniquely brilliant.
To my statement:
“You seem to be proud of your influence over fools, but you have only influenced those who were not God’s people.”
You replied:
“Way to make your claim unfalsifiable using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy! But that’s what all false religions must do: make their claims unfalsifiable, because making them falsifiable would expose them as untrue.”
Oh really Derek? Like your view of God and the Bible? Like your claim that God does or did nothing Good? Oh, I forgot, such things only apply to those of us who are not atheists. But lets deal with you accusation of my statement being the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. My, you must really feel intelligent abusing that fallacy as often as you do. I am curious as to what you would say about the atheists who converted to Christianity, that they truly were Atheist and somehow were just deceived? Or they were never atheist to begin with? Those are indeed the only two main options, if indeed a conversion has taken place. If not, there is also the possibility of pretense. So if those options are open for former atheist, why are they not open for former “Christians”. Why MUST it be a “No True Scotsman” fallacy?
To my statement:
“There you go again, proving me and others right about you. Repeating your rhetoric over and over here, as if by doing so will make it any less foolish, and hoping to kill the faith of someone who is reading it, only proves your agenda and my assessment of you.”
You replied:
“And there YOU go again. Instead of actually walking me through my argument and showing where I made a mistake, you try to deflect by making some other irrelevant accusation. The fact is, you can’t rationally argue against my Infinite Universes Problem for God. That is why I consider it a defeater for Christianity. You can only escape it by retreating to the usual useless Christian non-answers of claiming God works in mysterious ways and we don’t have a right to question him. It’s your only hope for avoiding cognitive dissonance.”
Derek, Derek, Derek, please give it up. There is documented evidence both in video and here that I did provide you with intelligent rational answers. But instead of you accepting them, (because you can’t, knowing it would destroy your con), you have to pretend that I did not answer, and none of us Christians have or can. This way you can continue to live in your illusionary mind of superiority. But to do this, you have to abandon your English training and ignore context, and apply misrepresentation tactics, and the overuse of strawman fallacies. Note your “we don’t have a right to question Him”. As an English major, tell me, is that the exact same thing as “not qualified to accurately judge His actions”? Is “God works in mysterious ways”, the exact same as, “God is omniscient and omnipotent and has a divine plan for the ages in which all that He does is incorporated, some of which He has revealed to us”? Which of your statements is equivalent to “God is not in our category and cannot therefore be viewed or judges as we are? And please tell me which of my statements amounts to a “non-answer”?
To my statement:
“You are not really concerned about saving people from their faith in God; you are a servant of Satan, seeking to turn away people from their faith, because you hate the idea of being accountable to God.”
You replied:
“More ridiculous Christian logic. For me to not believe in God because I hate the idea of being accountable to him makes as much sense as not believing in gravity because I hate the idea of being accountable for jumping out of a building.”
Again a false comparison. It makes sense, but you say it doesn’t to avoid admitting it. a Common tactic. No matter, you will answer to God for your insolence.
You continued:
“I seek to “turn people from their faith” in order to HELP them, not to hurt them. EVERY person who has written to me to say my arguments are what helped them lose their religion has considered it a POSITIVE change. That is why they write me to let me know. Watch my recent video on that subject and pause it to read the messages for yourself. For so many, it is like blinders have fallen away to reveal a much more wonderful and precious existence than anything Christianity has to offer. They no longer have to twist their minds trying to reconcile what the Bible says about God with what they know is evil.”
I will indeed, I look forward to engaging such testimonies. I am particularly interested in what is “more wonderful and precious about the atheist existence than what Christianity offers”. By the way, you do know that skin-heads, Klu Klux Klan, Black Muslims, Hebrew Israelites, jihadist and crazy people have shared such testimonies about their conversions don’t you? Such testimonies do not prove truth or the correctness a doctrine or worldview. You would know this if you allowed your English training rule your atheism. But you just can’t do that now can you? You have tasted the fruit of foolish human praise and undue gratitude, and your ego just won’t let you give it up. As I said, you require divine intervention. I’m still praying for you.
LikeLike
November 6, 2023 at 12:00 pm
Okay, clearly we’re getting nowhere here. I’d really thought we would have a productive, honest discussion with you, and it had such a promising start in the debates. But you now seem to be turning into another Scalia by deflecting and avoiding, becoming bitter, thin-skinned and focused more on insulting than having a real discussion. Well, that’s what happens when when one suffers cognitive dissonance to core beliefs, so I shouldn’t be surprised. And I suppose that makes you incapable of acknowledging that my arguments against your religion are legitimate and deserving of real answers. No matter how often I ask for actual arguments, I’m (mostly) just getting deflecting non-answers, like the following comment you made in response to my Infinite Universes Problem for God:
“Derek, Derek, Derek, please give it up. There is documented evidence both in video and here that I did provide you with intelligent rational answers. But instead of you accepting them, (because you can’t, knowing it would destroy your con), you have to pretend that I did not answer, and none of us Christians have or can. This way you can continue to live in your illusionary mind of superiority. But to do this, you have to abandon your English training and ignore context, and apply misrepresentation tactics, and the overuse of strawman fallacies. Note your “we don’t have a right to question Him”. As an English major, tell me, is that the exact same thing as “not qualified to accurately judge His actions”? Is “God works in mysterious ways”, the exact same as, “God is omniscient and omnipotent and has a divine plan for the ages in which all that He does is incorporated, some of which He has revealed to us”? Which of your statements is equivalent to “God is not in our category and cannot therefore be viewed or judges as we are? And please tell me which of my statements amounts to a “non-answer”?”
(As a side point, I just want to make a note about your curious obsession with repeatedly bringing up my English degree. I find it mildly amusing that you seem to think it was about studying precise meaning in historical lexicon, or whatnot, instead of about analyzing themes in literature and developing creative writing skills. I’m guessing you never took any English courses in college. Regardless, it doesn’t matter to me; I’m just mentioning it to save you some confusion and embarrassment.)
While most of the back-and-forth we’ve had is entertaining, I’m mostly interested in seeing if you have ANY reasonable argument to counter my IUP for God argument. But notice that your comment above didn’t actually respond to the IUP for God. All that verbiage tells me you likely don’t disagree with most of the points, you just don’t like the logical conclusions. But just to be sure, let me simplify the argument for you:
If God is ALL KNOWING, then by definition he could imagine any of an infinite number of universes. Furthermore, if he is ALL POWERFUL, then by definition he could create that exact universe. That means he COULD have chosen to create a universe where everyone happens to make the “right” decisions he wants us to make. Instead, he DELIBERATELY chose to create one of the universes where he KNEW everything would go wrong, where time and again he would end up condoning or committing nearly all the behaviors that his own creations would regard as evil in order to inflict UNNECESSARY suffering on humanity. That means God is ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for the existence of evil because this is the EXACT universe HE chose to create. Thus, one of the following three claims MUST be false:
1. God exists
2. God is good
3. God is all powerful
Where have I gone wrong in this argument? And please, if you have any personal integrity left, stop with the non-answer claims that God created us and is sovereign and thus can do what he likes. Put yourself in the shoes of a nonbeliever and ask yourself if your sovereignty argument would be in any way convincing. Your argument is little different than that of a child defending a horrifically abusive parent because the parent claims he created the child and is sovereign over his house. That is a NON-ANSWER because neither claim negates the fact that the parent is an abusive monster. Who cares if the parent created the child, who cares if he considers himself sovereign, and who cares if he says he has a plan and will make everything all sprinkles and rainbows after the child dies? NONE OF THAT MATTERS because he is abusing that child, and he should be regarded as a monster for this reason. If he somehow actually has a good reason for his behavior, he’s welcome to make his case personally…but the “creator and sovereign” argument won’t fly. And it would be immoral to just assume there’s a good reason and hope to eventually learn what it is.
So when you claim you’ve responded with “intelligent, rational answers,” but all you’ve given me is non-answers that no intelligent, rational person would accept, you aren’t even on the playing field yet. And you wonder why no one outside of your belief system finds your argument convincing? Even if YOU honestly find your argument compelling, surely you can see that it can only be compelling to someone who ALREADY believes. Has your argument EVER convinced even a single atheist? I very much doubt it.
“Nothing that I have said in our dialogues amounts to “might makes right”. But again, your atheist delusions prevent you from using your English training to see this. My argument has always been that, “Godness”, Creator, Sovereignty, Omniscience and Omnipotence is what makes God’s actions right. Not simply Might.”
See, it’s ridiculous statements like this that make me think you ran away from our debates because you realized you were losing. You say nothing in our dialogues amount to “might makes right,” and then in the very same paragraph you mention omnipotence as one of the very reasons you believe God‘s actions are right! Talk about trying desperately to find some way to make me appear to be the liar. Omnipotence means the ultimate in might, and when I accused you of claiming might makes right, it’s because it’s right there in your argument! Did I ever say that was the ONLY claim you made? No. But it is indeed accurate for me to point out that you believe might makes right. That’s not deceiving you, nor twisting the meaning of your words. The fact is you believe might makes right, regardless of what ELSE you believe that makes gods actions right.
And one final point: Only God’s “might” makes him “right.” If God were both accessible and NOT all powerful, do you think his being our sovereign creator would hold ANY sway against him being thrown in prison for crimes against humanity? Without his might he would lose his “right” to abuse humanity. Just like a parent who abuses his child deserves to be locked up.
At any rate, if I had had a hissy fit over over such minor nuance the way you have, the debates would have been over before they even started. Case in point:
“If indeed you actually do not believe God exists, then you are not an agnostic atheist, you are an atheist. Period.”
You claim to have argued with many an atheist, but you really are not aware of the distinction between agnostic and atheist? You didn’t even bother to look it up after I corrected you when you called in on Truth Wanted? An agnostic atheist does not believe in the existence of gods, while a gnostic atheist believes gods do not exist (please tell me you understand the difference between those two claims!). So not only we’re you confused about the definition of an agnostic atheist, but you didn’t know that someone who actively disbelieves in the existence of gods is a gnostic atheist.
If you don’t believe me, here are the definitions from the American Psychological Association (I try to avoid pasting links because the post can get held up, but you can easily google the quotes to find the sites): “Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn’t believe it’s possible to know for sure that a god exists. It’s possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn’t believe but also doesn’t think we can ever know whether a god exists. A gnostic atheist, on the other hand, believes with certainty that a god does not exist.”
And from the American Atheists: “Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”
So it should be clear to you that YOU mischaracterized ME. Yet am I upset about it? Not at all. Misperceptions happen. Perhaps you just think these atheism-agnosticism definitions are pedantically fussy distinctions, but to an active atheist there is a critical distinction, so I corrected you and moved on. That’s how a mature, rational person deals with potential misunderstandings.
Now perhaps you consider it a critical distinction to include “Creator, Sovereignty, Omniscience and Omnipotence” in any statement about what makes God’s actions right, even though that sounds to me like just a wordy way of saying “might makes right.” Had you not flown off the handle and just spelled out why the distinction matters to you, I could have accepted or argued further about that and moved on. But no, you had to blow the whole thing up with dramatic petulance.
“You ignore or deny the evidence of nature and the solar system. You deny the evidence for God in chemistry, genetic, biology, Geology, Astronomy, and mathematics. So you don’t have an evidence problem, you have a heart and mind problem.”
LOL! Yes, clearly me and the vast majority of scientists in those fields all have a “heart and mind” problem. 😉 Danzil, you are seriously misinformed. While it’s true that most scientists believe in some sort of higher power, the great majority do not believe in God. From Pew polling: “Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly HALF AS LIKELY as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% OF SCIENTISTS SAY THEY BELIEVE IN GOD, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” (Emphasis mine.)
And in regard to your particular brand of young earth creationism: “Asked which comes closer to their view, “Humans and other living things have evolved over time” or “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option.” Not only is that an older study from BEFORE Christianity’s most precipitous decline, but that refers to ALL scientists, not just the ones in the fields you listed. Biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. all skew even more to accepting evolutionary theory—over 99%.
Keep in mind that these scientists have long academic studies and advanced degrees, and their job is to study evidence for a living and work to falsify claims. Yet only a tiny fraction of them believes in your version of God or believes that the evidence in the various fields indicates the existence of gods. If the evidence actually DID support belief in God, then don’t you think the experts in evaluating evidence would be MORE likely to believe in God, instead of FAR LESS? I’m sorry, but your claim is simply wrong. It’s nothing more than the “but look at the trees” fallacy (google that) argument for God.
So is your defense of this going to be to concoct some sort of conspiracy theory of scientists worldwide conspiring to “hide the truth about God”? Of course, that would require ignoring the fact that there are still millions of scientists who believe in God and would produce the evidence if it existed.
“I am a rational Christian, as any reasonable person could see,”
Belief in claims unsupported by evidence—and especially claims contradicted by the evidence—is not rational. Thus, “rational Christian” is an oxymoron. And a rational person would reject creationism and accept evolutionary theory.
“You detest the efforts of Christians trying to defend Biblical morality, but you are fine with telling your lies about Christianity, and trying to get your atheistic ideas into laws and government policies.”
Feel free to try to defend biblical morality, because that’s not the problem. The problem is the attempt by Christian nationalists to force society to follow their religious dogma, something our most important founding fathers were strongly against. There are no “atheistic ideas” we want to get into laws and government policies. There are SECULAR policies which apply beneficially to BOTH theists and atheists, protecting both.
So ONCE AGAIN you deliberately mischaracterize my position. Note, however, that I continue to not get bent out of shape over your lies, while you continue to get your panties in a wad. You’re old enough to know better.
“Give me an example of “they” Christian who think I am crazy, satanic and an ignorant biblical fanatic.”
Are you seriously unaware that many of your fellow Christians despise evangelical-type Christianity? Google “Christians Against Christianity: How Right-Wing Evangelicals Are Destroying Our Nation and Our Faith” to see one example. I personally know at least a few Catholics and Mormons who believe people like you are ignorant biblical fanatics.
“I did indeed notice your “special point”, that is “my point”. Your “special point” is bogus, since you don’t believe God exists, thus all the evil that you claim that He did, was done by evil humans.”
It doesn’t matter whether the people God commits atrocities against in the Bible are evil or not. What matters is HIS evil behavior. When he orders his own people to tear babies from their mothers and hack them to death, that is evil behavior, even if she was a bad mom. If you can’t see that, you are the one with the morality problem, not me. Only a fool would accept your “creator and sovereignty” argument as justification for turning a blind eye to such evil.
“Not that I fully accept your definition of morality, but that is irrelevant, since your worldview cannot account for morality.”
What are you talking about? Morality is actually very easy to understand from a purely naturalistic perspective. Many species have an increased chance of survival if they can cooperate with one another in a social system. But for species to become social, they can’t be entirely selfish, or the society will fall apart. That’s why piranha know not to attack one another. Genes that express behaviors that encourage cooperation and reduce internal conflict are naturally selected for, because it increases the odds of survival of the social species. And the majority of species have the basic genetics on which these behaviors can build, in the form of maternal and paternal and protection of the family units. The more advanced and complex the species, the more sophisticated the social behaviors, and humans are the most complex social species on the planet. Morality is an extension of that social behavior—like compassion and empathy—to members beyond the family unit.
Furthermore, it doesn’t take much effort to realize that treating others the way you would want to be treated increases the chances that you will be treated the way you want to be treated. And since almost no one enjoys experiencing pain and suffering, it makes perfect sense to avoid inflicting such misery on others if you do not want to have it inflicted upon you.
Notice how none of that requires some being to impose a sense of morality on anyone. No objective law giver, no one set of absolute rules for morality, just normal evolutionary forces we see occurring in nature every day. Christians, on the other hand, have a harder time since they must reconcile a lot of the behavior condoned by their God with what they know instinctively is wrong. Slavery, torture, rape, murder, etc…these are behaviors we know are wrong, but which are condoned by the God of the Bible. As an atheist, I know these behaviors are wrong because I would not want to have them inflicted upon me. It’s as simple as that.
“What is pitiful Derek, is the fact that you really think you can sit in judgement over the God that created you, that you don’t even think exists, or claim not to. And that you actually think you know what is Necessary and not necessary about what He does.”
BY DEFINITION an omnipotent being can do ANYTHING, which means nothing is NECESSARY for him. You would know this if you thought about it for a moment. For example, one simple solution to prevent untold suffering throughout history and the damnation of countless billions of people to burn in hell for all eternity would be for God to simply dispense with the whole universe creation idea and simply create heaven populated with all the people who WOULD have been saved. Give them all the memories of a life on Earth where they accepted Jesus as their savior. Boom, done. No suffering or harm necessary, and God gets his ultimate plan the way he supposedly always wanted it. For anyone to say the current system is the best God can do is to ignore the meaning of omniscience and omnipotence. Face it, this is the world your God wanted, even though it was UNNECESSARY.
“Derek, tell me where in that text does it say, complete unity of theological agreement. Or perhaps, no disagreements, or maybe perfect harmony of doctrine. Ooops indeed. You never did bother to study the text did you? You just borrowed it from you fellow atheists, and believed that it was the perfect evidence of a Jesus failed prayer. What you missed in the very text that you quoted, is that Jesus tells you what he is talking about “those who WILL believe in me”, WILL BE joined with Jesus and the Father in unity. That unity is not based on perfect theological agreement with each other, it is based on faith and submission to Jesus as Savior.”
Wait, are you seriously trying to convince me that Jesus DIDN’T want Christian’s to agree theologically? Are you kidding me? So he was fine with BILLIONS of Christians throughout history choosing the wrong version of Christianity and ending up in hell? And you claim I’M the one who interprets the Bible incorrectly? See, this is what I mean by Christians tying themselves in knots with “creative interpretation” of scripture to try and avoid cognitive dissonance. This is just sad.
“If I do Derek, will you admit that you could be wrong on the other matters that I challenged you on here? The idea is called the “multi verse” Derek, and it has been around for a while now. It is popular among atheist evolutionists because they knew that our universe is far too fine tuned to be compatible with evolution, so they had to come up with an intellectual patch that would make our universes feasible as an evolutionary event.”
You make it sound like the multiverse is just something scientists made up to explain apparent fine tuning. But, unlike the Christian worldview, we have successful theories from physics and mathematics that predict the existence of multiple universes. They are mathematical consequences. Furthermore, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t help your position at all. For example:
1) We don’t know what goes into making a universe, nor what is the possible range of universal constants is, so we don’t know if there are trillions of variables or if there are actually no variables. If this is the ONLY possible configuration for a universe, the fine-tuning argument is moot. We have just this ONE universe to work from, and you can’t make a statistical analysis of a single data point.
2) Although changing ONE variable could mess up the chances of stars and planets forming, it’s possible that altering MULTIPLE variables can result in star and planet formation. Also, it may even be possible to ELIMINATE one force (the weak nuclear force) and still allow the formation of stars and planets (google “A Universe Without Weak Interactions Stanford SLAC”).
3) Even if a different configuration of the universal constants didn’t allow the formation of stars and planets, it’s possible some completely different paradigm could result in life of a very different sort to exist.
4) This universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. In other words, the universe we observe is extraordinarily inhospitable to life. Even what tiny inconsequential bits of it are at all hospitable are extremely inefficient at producing life. One way or another, a universe perfectly designed for life would easily, readily, and abundantly produce and sustain life. Most of the contents of that universe would be conducive to life or benefit life. Yet that’s not what we see. Instead, almost the entire universe is lethal to life as we know it.
The only place we know of that can support human life is our own planet, and it’s not very good at it.
More than 70% of Earth’s surface is water, and 10% is ice. 30% of the remainder is desert, leaving a bit over 12% of the surface as something an unprotected human can survive on, assuming there’s water, food and shelter readily available. Our planet has undergone at least five known mass extinction events. Our primary source of light and energy gives us CANCER, for crying out loud. Only a fool would say that this planet or the cosmos is intelligently designed for life.
5) If there ARE trillions of variables possible in the formation of a universe, that may STILL not be a problem because calculations from theories in physics predict the existence of multiple, even infinite universes. A multiverse filled with an infinite variety of universes would reduce any astronomical unlikeliness to absolute certainty…and our universe happens to be one of those that can sustain life as we know it. For all we know, there could be an infinite variety of universes out there that are FAR more amenable to life than this one is.
“I am curious as to what you would say about the atheists who converted to Christianity, that they truly were Atheist and somehow were just deceived? Or they were never atheist to begin with? Those are indeed the only two main options, if indeed a conversion has taken place. If not, there is also the possibility of pretense. So if those options are open for former atheist, why are they not open for former “Christians”. Why MUST it be a “No True Scotsman” fallacy?”
You forgot the most likely option: changing one’s mind. Just as there are Christians who become atheists, there are atheists who become Christians. What’s so weird about that? I’ve known a few former atheists who had deeply personal “spiritual” experiences and became Muslims, Christians and Hindus. I’ve known far more former christians who studied the Bible and the history of Christianity and became atheists. One good friend of mine was an evangelical pastor for 30 years, only to lose his faith in his search to understand everything he could about Christianity. People change based on their experiences.
But you certainly are guilty of a No True Scotsman fallacy. Look it up and see for yourself. It’s just a way that believers use to make the claim that people who leave the faith we’re never “truly” believers. It helps them save face when people leave their religion in droves. Most religions are guilty of this fallacy.
“Again a false comparison. It makes sense, but you say it doesn’t to avoid admitting it.”
HOW is it a false comparison? See, you keep making bold assertions like this without walking through the argument. So many of your arguments amount to this sort of “Nuh-uh!” as the sum total of your argument. If someone really believes something exists, denying its existence doesn’t make it go away. Just as it’s stupid to believe in but pretend gravity doesn’t exist so you can jump off buildings safely, it would be stupid to believe in but pretend God doesn’t exist so you can avoid going to hell. That is an apt analogy.
“a Common tactic. No matter, you will answer to God for your insolence.”
And you will answer to Allah for your insolence. You see how meaningless that claim is? If you can’t even begin to demonstrate the existence of God, much less meet the standard of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, why in the world would you think such a claim would have any impact on anyone who isn’t already a believer?
“By the way, you do know that skin-heads, Klu Klux Klan, Black Muslims, Hebrew Israelites, jihadist and crazy people have shared such testimonies about their conversions don’t you? Such testimonies do not prove truth or the correctness a doctrine or worldview.”
Thank you for admitting that conversion testimonies don’t prove the truth of any worldview—since testimonies are one of the main arguments so many Christians use as “evidence” for the “truth” of Christianity.
But the purpose of the testimonies in my video is not to “attest to the truth of atheism,” or any other such claim, but to demonstrate how many Christians I’ve helped lose their religion. You keep forgetting that the point of my videos is not to turn people into atheists, but to turn people away from fundamentalist Christianity and the harm it causes to society and science. Again, I believe in freedom of and from religion, not the abolishment of religion.
“As I said, you require divine intervention.”
All it would take is evidence your God exists. But thousands of years after a bunch of primitive goat-herders started worshiping a desert blood god, we’re still awaiting for ANY credible evidence.
“I’m still praying for you.”
Shall I ask the local Satanic Temple community to pray to Satan to deliver you from Christianity? No? Why not? Because you think Satan is an evil monster? Well, you know I think your God is an evil monster, so do you think I would appreciate you praying to your God for me? Do you not realize how condescending that is?
LikeLike
November 6, 2023 at 1:14 pm
Dumbo the Dingbat writes:<blockquote>But you now seem to be turning into another Scalia by deflecting and avoiding, becoming bitter, thin-skinned and focused more on insulting than having a real discussion.</blockquote>I never deflect, and I link to previous debates where the territory has already been trodden. Why repeat myself when Dingbat has already been refuted? Dumbo is a liar AND HE KNOWS HE’S A LIAR. If Dumbo were interested in a REAL DISCUSSION, he would have engaged in one a long time ago.
Whenever he runs out of argumentative ammunition, he repeats himself and pretends you don’t “get” his argument, he deflects to avoid admitting an obvious error, he attacks his own position because he can’t follow his own argument, or he attacks you (again, to avoid admitting error).
Dumbo, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, has no objective basis for morality. He thus lacks any warrant to call anything or anybody evil. Evil, in Dumbo’s mind, is simply a figment of his imagination.
Dumbo is stupidity squared. He’s a sad creature who likes to laugh at others without realizing that he’s been the punchline all along.
LikeLike
November 7, 2023 at 5:35 am
Derek, I have not yet read your reply in post 144, I certainly will soon, and I will reply to those parts that are relevant. From that bits I have glanced I can see that I was totally right about you, and this thread has greatly assisted me in my case against you. While I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt, as I am required to do, you have made it clear who you are and what you goal is and as I said, I am attempting to rise to the occasion. You have left so much evidence about yourself in your videos and here, and no doubt many other places. (as you stated that you are carrying on several debates as one time), that anyone who wanted to know what kind of person you are, would have not problem determining it from what you have published and produced. What fascinates me is the manner in which you vehemently insist that you have done nothing wrong, that you have been such a wonderful conservationists, a champion of truth of a sort, a moral humanitarian seeking to deliver religious fanatics from their delusions about God. And even when confronted about your improprieties, you just deny them, claim you have been the victim of what you have actually been the perpetrator of towards others. I have talked with reasonable people who are sincere, I know what sincerity looks and acts like. And I have had many dialogues with atheist evolutionists who were clearly not interested in getting at the truth. You are defiantly in that category. But telling you this and insisting this will not help you, my best approach would be to point by point address your public comments and statement, and allow the public decide. Since you admit that we are getting no where here, I would suggest that you stop wasting time here and use that time elsewhere. Unlessssssssss, you have another reason for being here.
Now, I will continue to be respectful to you, but I cannot pretend that you are this wonderful person that you think you are, while at the same time doing and saying things that put you in another category. But when you are responsible, kind and reasonable, I will give you credit, I can do no less. I hope one day in the future we will have another dialogue, but not until I have had the time to get through a sufficient amount of your material and provide sufficient responses to them. Because you seem to have difficulty recognizing when you have been “answered”. Or you use the “you have not answered me sufficiently” tactic to avoid having to defend your refuted claims. I have come to realize that you employ a non-falsifiable tactic of denial to protect yourself from having to deal with your errors, dishonesty and outright lies. This makes fruitful dialogue with you extremely difficult. Being nice verbally does not exonerate you from dishonesty, inaccuracy and insincerity.
LikeLike
November 7, 2023 at 5:58 am
Derek you said: 144
(As a side point, I just want to make a note about your curious obsession with repeatedly bringing up my English degree. I find it mildly amusing that you seem to think it was about studying precise meaning in historical lexicon, or whatnot, instead of about analyzing themes in literature and developing creative writing skills. I’m guessing you never took any English courses in college. Regardless, it doesn’t matter to me; I’m just mentioning it to save you some confusion and embarrassment.)
Derek, my constant reference to your English degree, was not to pinpoint what it mainly entailed, it was not to claim you had training in historical lexicons, it was to point out that having it, should have equipped you to be able to sufficiently understand context, to be able to sufficiently understand conversation. If so, you have no excuse for your many misrepresentations of what I said, in print or verbally. The fact that you have done both on many occasions, indicate that you either have forgotten some of your basic English training, or you are intentionally being dishonest. Even after your above side point, I am still not sure of which is it, could it be both? And please do play the victim and accuse me of being mean for saying this. I am making an observation based on your public actions, not trying to run you down. How about being adult about this.
LikeLike
November 7, 2023 at 6:38 am
This is another good example of why I question your English training effectiveness or honesty or both.
To my statement:
“Nothing that I have said in our dialogues amounts to “might makes right”. But again, your atheist delusions prevent you from using your English training to see this. My argument has always been that, “Godness”, Creator, Sovereignty, Omniscience and Omnipotence is what makes God’s actions right. Not simply Might.”
You replied:
“See, it’s ridiculous statements like this that make me think you ran away from our debates because you realized you were losing. You say nothing in our dialogues amount to “might makes right,” and then in the very same paragraph you mention omnipotence as one of the very reasons you believe God‘s actions are right! Talk about trying desperately to find some way to make me appear to be the liar. Omnipotence means the ultimate in might, and when I accused you of claiming might makes right, it’s because it’s right there in your argument!”
Derek, Your arrogance aside, I am hardly running away from debate with you, I am avoiding wasting time with someone who refuses to be honest or reasonable in dialogue. Here is another good example of this.
Notice how you keep separating and cherry picking individual characteristics of God to attack? I listed 5 categories that are to be taken as a combined truth about God, you zeroed in on one of them, Omnipotence, and based your “Might makes Right” accusation on it. Then you accuse me of denying that I said “might makes right”, because Omnipotence is included in my admission. Here is where your English training should have kicked in, but it couldn’t, because your atheist convictions controls your thinking.
In your effort to try to make my statement seem irrational, you realized the problem you got yourself into, so you included the following as damage control.
“Did I ever say that was the ONLY claim you made? No. But it is indeed accurate for me to point out that you believe might makes right. That’s not deceiving you, nor twisting the meaning of your words. The fact is you believe might makes right, regardless of what ELSE you believe that makes gods actions right.”
No Derek, you are not going to wiggle out of this that easy.
Because I list Omnipotence as one of the attributes of God, does not mandate that I am listing it as “one of the reasons” I believe God‘s actions are right!, that is your necessary atheist spin.
My argument included all 5 as a whole, and you singled out one, and made it the focal point of your objection because you know that if you keep them together, it would logically place God’s character in a much higher category that you must not allow Him to be in. (How am I doing?).
You see Derek, in order for you to support your atheist convictions, you can’t maintain a standard of honesty, fairness or accuracy, because atheism is an enemy of such things. It operates outside of reality and must do all it can to look credible.
LikeLike
November 7, 2023 at 8:35 am
Derek you said said: 144
“And one final point: Only God’s “might” makes him “right.” If God were both accessible and NOT all powerful, do you think his being our sovereign creator would hold ANY sway against him being thrown in prison for crimes against humanity? Without his might he would lose his “right” to abuse humanity. Just like a parent who abuses his child deserves to be locked up.”
No Derek, it is not ONLY God’s might that makes Him Right, “All” of God’s attributes make what He does right, but again, your atheist mind set prevents you from being honest about this. Below you prove that you know this and are trying to do damage control, I don’t blame you.
You said:
“At any rate, if I had had a hissy fit over over such minor nuance the way you have, the debates would have been over before they even started. Case in point: “If indeed you actually do not believe God exists, then you are not an agnostic atheist, you are an atheist. Period.” You claim to have argued with many an atheist, but you really are not aware of the distinction between agnostic and atheist? You didn’t even bother to look it up after I corrected you when you called in on Truth Wanted? An agnostic atheist does not believe in the existence of gods, while a gnostic atheist believes gods do not exist (please tell me you understand the difference between those two claims!). So not only we’re you confused about the definition of an agnostic atheist, but you didn’t know that someone who actively disbelieves in the existence of gods is a gnostic atheist.”
Your arrogance is astounding Derek. And your damage control is humorous. I knew full well what the claimed difference is between atheism and agnostic atheist is. And the claimed difference between a gnostic and agnostic atheist is. I also know the real reason behind atheists opting for the title agnostic over atheist. While atheist works hard to complicate the issue for their intellectual protection, it is not really complicated. but it is clearly important to you all that it is accepted and understood as relevant. (Sort of Like my insisting that what I say be taken as stated and not twisted and cherry picked to make your argument look better than it actually is).
After wasting much space posting official definitions, you continued your damage control:
“So it should be clear to you that YOU mischaracterized ME. Yet am I upset about it? Not at all. Misperceptions happen. Perhaps you just think these atheism-agnosticism definitions are pedantically fussy distinctions, but to an active atheist there is a critical distinction, so I corrected you and moved on. That’s how a mature, rational person deals with potential misunderstandings.”
I guess mischaracterization is in the eyes of the beholder. Or is it determined by careful examination of all of what is said? So you fancy yourself as a mature, rational person? And I presume that you think that I am not? Again, others can decide for themselves.
You continued your damage control:
“Now perhaps you consider it a critical distinction to include “Creator, Sovereignty, Omniscience and Omnipotence” in any statement about what makes God’s actions right, even though that sounds to me like just a wordy way of saying “might makes right.”
Oh really Derek? A Critical distinction to include them all? Could it be that your English training slipped through your atheism for a moment?
But it did not last too long did it? Back in damage control mode you said:
“Had you not flown off the handle and just spelled out why the distinction matters to you, I could have accepted or argued further about that and moved on. But no, you had to blow the whole thing up with dramatic petulance.”
Now why would I have to “spell out why the distinction mattered” to me, when I clearly communicated to you my point? It was your twisted thinking by necessity that made you cherry pick and twist it. That is one of the issues that I have with you that I have been trying to get you to acknowledge.
LikeLike
November 7, 2023 at 10:10 am
@Preacherteacher, that’s Dumbo’s modus operandi. He reflexively reframes an opponent’s argument into a straw man and proceeds to torch the straw man. When the scarecrow is consumed, he declares himself the victor. He has multiple times commended and thanked me for getting his arguments correct when others misunderstood him, but he doesn’t make the same effort to understand another’s argument. Even when it is pointed out to him, he continues to do it. That’s the surest indicator of dishonesty. If he really believes that he has the truth and that his arguments are superior, then he wouldn’t mind presenting opposing views in their best possible light. He, of course, cannot do that because in their best possible light, he would have to admit error. And that is something his pride will not allow.
LikeLike
November 9, 2023 at 7:02 am
Derek another reply to your 144
You said:
“Okay, clearly we’re getting nowhere here. I’d really thought we would have a productive, honest discussion with you, and it had such a promising start in the debates. But you now seem to be turning into another Scalia by deflecting and avoiding, becoming bitter, thin-skinned and focused more on insulting than having a real discussion.”
Amazing, Derek you are so into yourself that you really can’t see what you are doing. You say you are looking for a productive and honest discussion, without committing to being honest, and torching the possibility of productivity with your denial and avoidance tactics, while at the same time accusing me of not giving answers. Why is it that you can see, or I should say hallucinate seeing “deflecting and avoidance, thin-skin and insults from others, but you don’t seem to label what you do as such? Seems like a double standard to me.
You continued:
“Well, that’s what happens when when one suffers cognitive dissonance to core beliefs, so I shouldn’t be surprised.”
So, you accuse me of suffering from cognitive dissonance because insist that you are dishonest in your approach to God and the Bible. That would make everyone who disagrees with you fall into that category I guess.
You then once again use your false “no answer” claim:
“And I suppose that makes you incapable of acknowledging that my arguments against your religion are legitimate and deserving of real answers. No matter how often I ask for actual arguments, I’m (mostly) just getting deflecting non-answers,”
Well Derek, that is because your mindset prevents you from being honest about the answers that you have received. As I said, if you were to acknowledge my answers as answers, you would then have to refute them, and you can’t, so denying they are answers becomes your defense. Then you just complain about not getting answers and declare yourself the victor. The only problem is, that tactic only works with people who are not interested in thinking critically, but only Atheistically, like atheist. When you are ready to come out of that atheist bubble and have a real discussion, we can have a good conversation.
You then quote my following comment as an example of my “non-answer”. Let’s look at this.
You said:
“like the following comment you made in response to my Infinite Universes Problem for God:
Then you quote my statement:
“Derek, Derek, Derek, please give it up. There is documented evidence both in video and here that I did provide you with intelligent rational answers. But instead of you accepting them, (because you can’t, knowing it would destroy your con), you have to pretend that I did not answer, and none of us Christians have or can. This way you can continue to live in your illusionary mind of superiority. But to do this, you have to abandon your English training and ignore context, and apply misrepresentation tactics, and the overuse of straw-man fallacies. Note your “we don’t have a right to question Him”. As an English major, tell me, is that the exact same thing as “not qualified to accurately judge His actions”? Is “God works in mysterious ways”, the exact same as, “God is omniscient and omnipotent and has a divine plan for the ages in which all that He does is incorporated, some of which He has revealed to us”? Which of your statements is equivalent to “God is not in our category and cannot therefore be viewed or judges as we are? And please tell me which of my statements amounts to a “non-answer”?”
Then you said:
“….. I’m mostly interested in seeing if you have ANY reasonable argument to counter my IUP for God argument. But notice that your comment above didn’t actually respond to the IUP for God. All that verbiage tells me you likely don’t disagree with most of the points, you just don’t like the logical conclusions. ….”
But Derek, my comment was not a response to your “Infinite Universes” argument and you know it. My response was to your following statement” (post 143 paragraph 8)
“And there YOU go again. Instead of actually walking me through my argument and showing where I made a mistake, you try to deflect by making some other irrelevant accusation. The fact is, you can’t rationally argue against my Infinite Universes Problem for God. That is why I consider it a defeater for Christianity. You can only escape it by retreating to the usual useless Christian non-answers of claiming God works in mysterious ways and we don’t have a right to question him. It’s your only hope for avoiding cognitive dissonance.”
Note, there you accused me of not answering your I.U. argument and not being able to. And deflecting by making irrelevant accusations and non answer claims of God working in mysterious ways, and trying to avoid cognitive dissonance. That is what my comment was a response to. So did you lie about this? Yes.
AS for your Infinite Universes argument, and your claim that I did not answer it, please take a look at my post 123 the 7th and 8th paragraphs.
You said:
“Yet another of my evil God arguments that I haven’t seen anyone make, but which I think is one of the biggest defeaters of the “good God” claim is this: An all-knowing mind could imagine ANY possible universe …. But God deliberately chose to create THIS universe, one where he knew everything would go wrong. And that makes him 100% at fault for all evil.”
I replied:
Again, your arrogance is staggering, to think that you are the sole person who came up with the idea of God being to blame for Evil in the world. And your above example is flawed because of your arrogance and ignorance about God and the meaning of All-knowing.
You keep denying that you are ignorant about the biblical God, and you keep demonstrating it by your borrowed arguments. I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that because God is “all knowing”, that God “avoided” creating a reality in which everything was perpetually perfect and no harm or pain was suffered by anyone. That is your and other rebellious human centered thinkers idea, who thinks our reality is all about you. It is not. What exist is not about humanity and nothing you say or think will change that fact. If you really read the entire Bible instead of taking your information from atheist material, you would know this. God did not “avoid” it; He simply created reality as He wanted to and for His reasons. And in this “only” reality, what happened to, with, and because, happened as a result of thoughts and actions by all involved.
Seeking to blame God for foolish, evil or rebellious acts against Him, and the resulting punishments and suffering that followed is typical depravity thinking. But it will not change the fact that you and I, and all who live and lived, will give an account to God for what we have or have not done. And no amount of hypothetical thinking, fantasizing, pontificating and philosophizing will change that.
You simply use such arguments as an effort to deceived people into rejecting God, so that people like you can provide them with direction, as a God replacement. But then without God, our reality is suddenly just fine, even though the same evil exists, only now humans are the cause, and that is suddenly a minor issue. Interesting.
So this amount to another lie that you told. Or if you prefer to clean it up a bit, an error in your memory. Either way, it demonstrates that you seem to be only concerned with prosecuting, and not being accurate, honest or integral about what you are saying and doing.
LikeLike
November 11, 2023 at 9:29 am
Derek another reply to your 144
You continued:
“If God is ALL KNOWING, then by definition he could imagine any of an infinite number of universes. Furthermore, if he is ALL POWERFUL, then by definition he could create that exact universe. That means he COULD have chosen to create a universe where everyone happens to make the “right” decisions he wants us to make.”
So far this is correct. But you continued:
“Instead, he DELIBERATELY chose to create one of the universes where he KNEW everything would go wrong,…”
Well, how do you know that “everything has gone wrong”?
You continued:
“where time and again he would end up condoning or committing nearly all the behaviors that his own creations would regard as evil…”
Yet your simplistic approach to this issue, and your need to misrepresent it to aid your atheism, makes it impossible for you to admit that His “Own creation do not all regard those acts of God as “Evil”. First, because most of his creation are not human and thus are not intelligent enough to think on those terms. Only humans are. And second, because many humans don’t because we understand that He is God. And those creations who do such as yourself who fancy yourselves as authorities on morality, have no clue about what you are talking about when you accuse God of evil. (Stay tuned for my Video).
You continued:
“in order to inflict UNNECESSARY suffering on humanity.”
And how do you define unnecessary, and how do you determine it is “unnecessary”? And why would your view of “unnecessary” be more accurate than God’s view?
You continued:
“That means God is ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for the existence of evil because this is the EXACT universe HE chose to create.”
Correct, and being all knowing, holy and righteous, He has his reasons for choosing to make this kind of universe. And He does not have to answer to us as to why. He makes it clear that creation is for Him not us, we are a part of it and we need to get in line with His purpose. I make no apology for God, nor do I have to defend His actions to you or anyone as good or not evil. He chose to make this reality and to allow it to unfold as it has for His purpose. I am smart enough to accept that given “who” He is and “what” He has revealed of Himself. You cannot accept it because you claim to deny His existence, and therefore you reject who He is, and so you can’t possibly understand how serious an error you are making. You think you are being wise, but you are being a fool. And that is demonstrated in your efforts to explain life without God, and in your efforts to replace God with evolution.
You then come to this false conclusion:
“Thus, one of the following three claims MUST be false: 1. God exists 2. God is good3. God is all powerful”
No, all are true, and you are missing others, 4. God is all knowing, 5. God is holy. 6. God is eternal, and so on. Your denying any of these is irrelevant.
But note your strawman tactic, AGAIN, you cunningly left out, omniscient. And you error or lie, because all can be and indeed are true. All you have to do to understand this is give up your rebellion and arrogance. It is your fabricated, (albeit necessary) definitions and conclusions that are the problem, not God.
You then asked:
“Where have I gone wrong in this argument? And please, if you have any personal integrity left, stop with the non-answer claims that God created us and is sovereign and thus can do what he likes.”
Non-answer? How are you defining “answer”? Don’t you really mean “answer that I am willing to accept as a refutation to my argument”? And we both know that is impossible while you are operating under the delusion of atheism. I have already answered, and because you don’t like my answer, does not make it a non-answer. Perhaps you should give that non-answer tactic a rest and respond to my answer.
You continued:
“Put yourself in the shoes of a nonbeliever and ask yourself if your sovereignty argument would be in any way convincing.”
I don’t have to put myself in their shoes, I was once in that state, and I remember it well. I also know what it takes to get through to such a person, and one such necessity is their sincerity.
You said:
“Your argument is little different than that of a child defending a horrifically abusive parent because the parent claims he created the child and is sovereign over his house. That is a NON-ANSWER because neither claim negates the fact that the parent is an abusive monster. Who cares if the parent created the child, who cares if he considers himself sovereign, and who cares if he says he has a plan and will make everything all sprinkles and rainbows after the child dies? NONE OF THAT MATTERS because he is abusing that child, and he should be regarded as a monster for this reason. If he somehow actually has a good reason for his behavior, he’s welcome to make his case personally…”
This is precisely the kind of regurgitation of complaints that have been responded to and rejected as having not been answered. But it is because you are unwilling to admit that you are uninterested in truth. You are only interested in replacing God and Christians with Atheism.
Your example above is flawed, and you have been told this often by me, but you simply reject it as a non-answer. Thus, we are not able to have a real dialogue about this. Since in your mind God either does not exist, or you refuse to admit that He does exist so that you can hold on to your scam, thus, we are unable to have an intelligent dialogue. Nothing in your example about is tantamount to God’s status with humanity. But you keep God on a human level, because you must to protect your worldview. Your con is falling apart.
You said:
“but the “creator and sovereign” argument won’t fly. And it would be immoral to just assume there’s a good reason and hope to eventually learn what it is.”
It does more than fly, it is the truth. And you have no grounds to accuse anyone of being immoral, your worldview does not allow it.
You continued:
“So when you claim you’ve responded with “intelligent, rational answers,” but all you’ve given me is non-answers that no intelligent, rational person would accept, you aren’t even on the playing field yet.”
Expressed like a true egotist. Only other atheists have accepted my answers, and at least they try to counter them, without claiming they are not answers. So that would make the other atheist unintelligent and irrational? And for someone not on the playing field, you sure seem to be preoccupied with me.
You continued:
“And you wonder why no one outside of your belief system finds your argument convincing? Even if YOU honestly find your argument compelling, surely you can see that it can only be compelling to someone who ALREADY believes. Has your argument EVER convinced even a single atheist? I very much doubt it.”
No. I don’t wonder why, I never said that I wonder why no one outside of my belief system finds my argument convincing. And unless that bubble that you live in is thicker than I thought, you know full well that our arguments has resulted in the conversion of many former atheist, and others “outside of our belief system”. Must you pretend that atheist don’t convert to Christianity too? I have friends who are former atheist, they did get it, because they were sincere, you clearly are not.
To my statement:
“You ignore or deny the evidence of nature and the solar system. You deny the evidence for God in chemistry, genetic, biology, Geology, Astronomy, and mathematics. So you don’t have an evidence problem, you have a heart and mind problem.”
You replied:
“LOL! Yes, clearly me and the vast majority of scientists in those fields all have a “heart and mind” problem. 😉 Danzil, you are seriously misinformed. While it’s true that most scientists believe in some sort of higher power, the great majority do not believe in God. From Pew polling: “Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly HALF AS LIKELY as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% OF SCIENTISTS SAY THEY BELIEVE IN GOD, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.” (Emphasis mine.)”
Derek, polls do not establish truth. On what do you base your confidence in polling claims fact? And how do you gage the sincerity and honesty of the people polled or the accuracy of the pollsters? Your faith in polls as proof is irrational.
You continued:
“And in regard to your particular brand of young earth creationism: “Asked which comes closer to their view, “Humans and other living things have evolved over time” or “Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” 97% of scientists responding chose the former option, as opposed to only 2% choosing the latter option.” Not only is that an older study from BEFORE Christianity’s most precipitous decline, but that refers to ALL scientists, not just the ones in the fields you listed. Biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, etc. all skew even more to accepting evolutionary theory—over 99%.”
The question is bogus. And it does not matter what the percentages say, what matters is the truth.
You are not even sufficiently informed to know that the fixity of species is not a Young Earth Creationist position. Or that all creationist of any intelligence know that all live forms evolve over time to some minor extent. Basic evolving has never been the argument, Darwinian evolution (as in particles to people) via natural selection and mutations being the mechanisms for the existence of all life forms is the issue. Your games will not work with me. Your “phrasing games” only work with the uninformed, so please don’t waist them on me.
You said:
“Keep in mind that these scientists have long academic studies and advanced degrees, and their job is to study evidence for a living and work to falsify claims. Yet only a tiny fraction of them believes in your version of God or believes that the evidence in the various fields indicates the existence of gods. If the evidence actually DID support belief in God, then don’t you think the experts in evaluating evidence would be MORE likely to believe in God, instead of FAR LESS? I’m sorry, but your claim is simply wrong. It’s nothing more than the “but look at the trees” fallacy (google that) argument for God.”
I am touched by your faith in scientists; it shows that you can have faith in something. I am also saddened by it, because it is misplaced. When I am done trashing your evolution video, we will see if you are still interested in having that dialogue. Majority opinion has been wrong on many science matters, you know this. Not only in the past, but in our time, science fraud abounds because of how willing the majority are to accept fake and false research. Do you really want to go there?
You continued:
“Belief in claims unsupported by evidence—and especially claims contradicted by the evidence—is not rational. Thus, “rational Christian” is an oxymoron. And a rational person would reject creationism and accept evolutionary theory.”
We shall see, won’t we? But you making such an irrational statement tells me that you are not really interested in getting at the truth, you fully and willingly accept the lies of evolution because you must for your atheist world view to have even an illusion of being intelligent. If I were you, I would not press the issues; it will not end well for you.
By the way, I am still waiting for your response to my rebuttal of your definitions of “Christian”.
To my statement:
“You detest the efforts of Christians trying to defend Biblical morality, but you are fine with telling your lies about Christianity, and trying to get your atheistic ideas into laws and government policies.”
You replied:
“Feel free to try to defend biblical morality, because that’s not the problem. The problem is the attempt by Christian nationalists to force society to follow their religious dogma, something our most important founding fathers were strongly against.”
As I told you, I am not for the type of Christian nationalists who seek to force people to comply to Christian principles. But what Religious Dogma are you referring to? And how do you define “our most important founding father”? What makes Him our most important founding father? His atheism?
You said:
“There are no “atheistic ideas” we want to get into laws and government policies.”
Derek you do know that the humanist manifestos (authored by atheist) are still public documents don’t you? There are also many public proclamations by atheist about what they demand of governments. So your statement would accurately be described as a lie would it not?
You said:
“There are SECULAR policies which apply beneficially to BOTH theists and atheists, protecting both.”
Please be specific, what are they?
You said:
“So ONCE AGAIN you deliberately mischaracterize my position. Note, however, that I continue to not get bent out of shape over your lies, while you continue to get your panties in a wad. You’re old enough to know better.”
You have yet to prove my “mischaracterization” of your position or “my getting panties in a wad”. The humanist manifestos and public atheist statements proves that there are indeed atheist idea you want to get into laws and some you have already gotten in. So please stop with the games. You are old enough to know better.
LikeLike
November 11, 2023 at 11:03 am
Derek, my continued reply to your 144
To my question:
“Give me an example of “they” Christian who think I am crazy, satanic and an ignorant biblical fanatic.”
You replied:
“Are you seriously unaware that many of your fellow Christians despise evangelical-type Christianity? Google “Christians Against Christianity: How Right-Wing Evangelicals Are Destroying Our Nation and Our Faith” to see one example. I personally know at least a few Catholics and Mormons who believe people like you are ignorant biblical fanatics.”
But I am not an evangelical, and why do you believe that I consider such Christians who despise evangelicals who are “right-wing” to be Christians? Because you accept them as Christian because they express hate for “right-wing” Christians, does not make them Christians. By the way, did YOU ever respond to my refutation of your definition of what a Christian is?
To my statement:
“I did indeed notice your “special point”, that is “my point”. Your “special point” is bogus, since you don’t believe God exists, thus all the evil that you claim that He did, was done by evil humans.”
Note how you replied:
“It doesn’t matter whether the people God commits atrocities against in the Bible are evil or not.”
That is not what I said in my quote that you referenced. Why did you “EVADE” it? Talk about a non-answer, or deflection. You just did what you accused me of doing.
You continued:
“What matters is HIS evil behavior. When he orders his own people to tear babies from their mothers and hack them to death, that is evil behavior, even if she was a bad mom. If you can’t see that, you are the one with the morality problem, not me. Only a fool would accept your “creator and sovereignty” argument as justification for turning a blind eye to such evil.”
That is because you do not believe God exist, therefore you do not have a clue as to just how horrible sin is. But because you don’t care, does not make sin non-existent or trivial. “bad mom”? How about wicked mom? For God to order the death of all women and children in a community, they were extremely wicked people, and their children’s death may well have been an act of mercy. Since you try to pretend that sin is non-existent, since you claim there is no evidence for God, you can’t possibly understand God’s punishment of any sin as reported in the Bible. Yet you act as if you actually have a grasp on it. And you superimpose your atheistic perspectives onto your approach to the biblical text, and dishonestly pretend that you are or even can be honest about what you say about God and the Bible.
To my statement:
“Not that I fully accept your definition of morality, but that is irrelevant, since your worldview cannot account for morality.”
You replied:
“What are you talking about? Morality is actually very easy to understand from a purely naturalistic perspective.”
No, it is not easy to understand from a naturalistic perspective, you think it is because you have allowed scientists, psychological and social professionals to think for you. And you blindly accept their naturalistic conclusions. Now defend them to me, and let’s see how easy it is.
You proceeded:
“Many species have an increased chance of survival if they can cooperate with one another in a social system. But for species to become social, they can’t be entirely selfish, or the society will fall apart. That’s why piranha know not to attack one another.”
This statement tells me that you have not thought this through; you have simply adopted it from others. You use terms that only actually apply to human intellect, like “cooperate”, and “selfish” to describe the behavior of other non-human “species” as if you or scientists know what they are thinking or how they think. This is ignorant, foolish and arrogant, but very effective on people who are not critical thinkers. To assume that “social survival” is why piranha “know not to attack one another” is silly, creatures do not need to understand social survival to instinctively recognize their sameness. But then, when you remove God from the equation, you naturally have to invent a replacement for the how and why of things. Foolishness is the result. So the non-human claims of moral expressions is plain foolish. So let’s deal with your comments about human morals.
You said:
“The more advanced and complex the species, the more sophisticated the social behaviors, and humans are the most complex social species on the planet. Morality is an extension of that social behavior—like compassion and empathy—to members beyond the family unit. Furthermore, it doesn’t take much effort to realize that treating others the way you would want to be treated increases the chances that you will be treated the way you want to be treated. And since almost no one enjoys experiencing pain and suffering, it makes perfect sense to avoid inflicting such misery on others if you do not want to have it inflicted upon you.”
What you have just regurgitated is the typical hocus pocus that evolution scientists have been conning the public with for years. What you have allowed yourself to be tricked into ignoring, is the fact that human intellect, mind and conscience, cannot be explained biologically. There are no moral genes, no code for reason. You have accepted the pontifications of scientists who are motivated to pretend that they know and understand more than they actually do. What amazing “faith” you have in them.
I will be happy to dismantle it for you in my video response to your evolution claims. Then we can have this discussion.
You continued:
“Notice how none of that requires some being to impose a sense of morality on anyone. No objective law giver, no one set of absolute rules for morality, just normal evolutionary forces we see occurring in nature every day.”
Notice how you accept that foolishness with confident arrogance, with no evidence whatsoever? By the way, since it is a known fact that scientists contradict and even denounce each other on a variety of such topics, does that make science automatically false? I ask because you seem to think varying views among “Christians” somehow indicates its falsehood. Or is this where your double standard tactic kick in?
And your comparison if this to Christianity is humorous:
“Christians, on the other hand, have a harder time since they must reconcile a lot of the behavior condoned by their God with what they know instinctively is wrong. Slavery, torture, rape, murder, etc…these are behaviors we know are wrong, but which are condoned by the God of the Bible.”
Since your Bible knowledge and your ability to accurately interpret text or pay attentions to context and history is clearly deficient, and since you are clueless as to who the biblical God is, you are hardly qualified to teach anyone about God or Christianity, or to even have an intelligent discussion about them. But that does not stop you from your irrational boasting about atheism now does it?
You continued:
“As an atheist, I know these behaviors are wrong because I would not want to have them inflicted upon me. It’s as simple as that.”
No, as a human being your know this, not as an atheist. As an atheist, you can know nothing. Because in your worldview laws cannot exist, there is no intelligent cause for anything and there is no logic, no love, no reason, no spirits, just human imagination on steroids.
You clearly are not even good at paying attention to conversation, which is why you keep repeating things that have been refuted without providing a counter rebuttal.
Note, to my statement:
“What is pitiful Derek, is the fact that you really think you can sit in judgement over the God that created you, that you don’t even think exists, or claim not to. And that you actually think you know what is Necessary and not necessary about what He does.”
You replied:
“BY DEFINITION an omnipotent being can do ANYTHING, which means nothing is NECESSARY for him. You would know this if you thought about it for a moment. For example, one simple solution to prevent untold suffering throughout history and the damnation of countless billions of people to burn in hell for all eternity would be for God to simply dispense with the whole universe creation idea and simply create heaven populated with all the people who WOULD have been saved. Give them all the memories of a life on Earth where they accepted Jesus as their savior. Boom, done. No suffering or harm necessary, and God gets his ultimate plan the way he supposedly always wanted it. For anyone to say the current system is the best God can do is to ignore the meaning of omniscience and omnipotence. Face it, this is the world your God wanted, even though it was UNNECESSARY.”
This is sad, you are so arrogant and sure that you are not even able to see your irrationality. To think that you can tell God what He should have and could have done to be viewed by us as Good. To think that you know what is best for His creation is sad. Your childish objection to what is, and your sad desire to take the place of God in the minds of those who will believe you, is meaningless. Ranting against what is will not change it.
To my question:
“Derek, tell me where in that text does it say, complete unity of theological agreement. Or perhaps, no disagreements, or maybe perfect harmony of doctrine. Ooops indeed. You never did bother to study the text did you? You just borrowed it from you fellow atheists, and believed that it was the perfect evidence of a Jesus failed prayer. What you missed in the very text that you quoted, is that Jesus tells you what he is talking about “those who WILL believe in me”, WILL BE joined with Jesus and the Father in unity. That unity is not based on perfect theological agreement with each other, it is based on faith and submission to Jesus as Savior.”
Note your sassy confident reply:
“Wait, are you seriously trying to convince me that Jesus DIDN’T want Christian’s to agree theologically? Are you kidding me? So he was fine with BILLIONS of Christians throughout history choosing the wrong version of Christianity and ending up in hell? And you claim I’M the one who interprets the Bible incorrectly? See, this is what I mean by Christians tying themselves in knots with “creative interpretation” of scripture to try and avoid cognitive dissonance. This is just sad.”
No Derek, what is sad is that you have proven time and time again, that your English training is no match for your atheist religion. Your atheism often makes it extremely difficult for you to read text and accurately understand it. Now take a deep breath and read my statement again “that you quoted”:
Note my words “complete unity of theological agreement”, “no disagreements”, “perfect harmony of doctrine” vs “those who WILL believe in me”.
Now notice your shocking interpretation of what you read:
“Wait, are you seriously trying to convince me that Jesus DIDN’T want Christian’s to agree theologically? Are you kidding me?”
Now take your time Derek and ask yourself if you correctly understood my statement. And if your response is intelligent. You see, you do this with so much of the material that you address. It is a serious habit, and I do not think it is just an innocent error. I believe you do know how bankrupt your arguments are, but you also know that you have no choice but to play this game in order to prop up your atheism. And you have gotten so used to people just accepting what you say, and getting agreement from your circle of like-minded atheists, that being careful about your comprehension and representation of others has become inconsequential to your atheist agenda. This is also why having an intelligent dialogue with you is difficult. You are not even willing to see what you are doing. You are so sure that you are a bastion of intellectual fortitude.
LikeLike
November 11, 2023 at 2:19 pm
Derek, this my concluding reply to your 144
I want you to pay careful attention to how you respond to my statements that I made as a direct reply to yours.
Post 143 Preacherteacher Says:
Derek, this is my pt.5 to your 137 post
To my statement:
“And you and they are fools. You if you believe it, and think that you will get me to believe you have never heard or seen that “infinite universes” view before you adapted it as your own, and they for being willing to trust you to lead them to enlightenment.”
You replied:
“Really? Okay, then, I defy you to find anyone who came up with this idea before me. If you are so certain that all my ideas had to have come from someone else, rather than the inevitable conclusions of reading the Bible’s claims of an omniscient and omnipotent God, then find me someone else who came up with it.”
So this is where my statement stems from. Notice we are discussing your tendency to boast originality of arguments and ideas, namely your “infinite universes”. I was responding to your challenge.
I said:
“If I do Derek, will you admit that you could be wrong on the other matters that I challenged you on here? The idea is called the “multi verse” Derek, and it has been around for a while now. It is popular among atheist evolutionists because they knew that our universe is far too fine tuned to be compatible with evolution, so they had to come up with an intellectual patch that would make our universes feasible as an evolutionary event.”
But instead of you conceding your error, you just evade that matter and shift the focus.
You replied:
“You make it sound like the multiverse is just something scientists made up to explain apparent fine tuning.”
Please note for the record your evasion. And yes, that is exactly what it is. Something made up to counter the fine tuning matter.
You continued:
“But, unlike the Christian worldview, we have successful theories from physics and mathematics that predict the existence of multiple universes. They are mathematical consequences.”
There you go again Derek, that amazing faith in what some scientists “claim”, and that sly effort to pretend that their claims are solid, when you know that such ideas have been exposed as frivolous by other scientists. Your own the late Steven J Gould, and more recently late Richard C. Lewontin, were notorious for shooting you all in the foot by being brutally honest about false claims that your evolutionists scientists made.
You then continued by trying to trivialize the fine tuning argument:
“Furthermore, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t help your position at all. For example:
1) We don’t know what goes into making a universe, nor what is the possible range of universal constants is, so we don’t know if there are trillions of variables or if there are actually no variables. If this is the ONLY possible configuration for a universe, the fine-tuning argument is moot. We have just this ONE universe to work from, and you can’t make a statistical analysis of a single data point.
But didn’t you just write: “we have successful theories from physics and mathematics that predict the existence of multiple universes”? It this double talk?
You continued:
“2) Although changing ONE variable could mess up the chances of stars and planets forming, it’s possible that altering MULTIPLE variables can result in star and planet formation. Also, it may even be possible to ELIMINATE one force (the weak nuclear force) and still allow the formation of stars and planets (google “A Universe Without Weak Interactions Stanford SLAC”).3) Even if a different configuration of the universal constants didn’t allow the formation of stars and planets, it’s possible some completely different paradigm could result in life of a very different sort to exist.”
Stated like a true science zealot. Hocus Pocus!, abracadabra! “it’s possible”, “can result in”, “it may even be possible”, “and a partridge and a pear tree”. Give it up Derek, such fantasy speculations are meaningless.
But then you just have to attack what is:
4) This universe is 99.99999 percent composed of lethal radiation-filled vacuum, and 99.99999 percent of all the material in the universe comprises stars and black holes on which nothing can ever live, and 99.99999 percent of all other material in the universe (all planets, moons, clouds, asteroids) is barren of life or even outright inhospitable to life. ….” The only place we know of that can support human life is our own planet, and it’s not very good at it. More than 70% of Earth’s surface is water, and 10% is ice. 30% of the remainder is desert, leaving a bit over 12% of the surface as something an unprotected human can survive on, …crying out loud. Only a fool would say that this planet or the cosmos is intelligently designed for life.”
Unless you accept the sin principle, the corruptions of creation via the rebellions of humans like yourself. All a part of that God you claim not to believe in’s plan. Buy the way the water to land ratio is one of the fine tuning principles. Just saying. And that 99.99999 percent of lethal radiation was not meant for us to live in, it is for display.
And you top it all off with:
“5) If there ARE trillions of variables possible in the formation of a universe, that may STILL not be a problem because calculations from theories in physics predict the existence of multiple, even infinite universes. A multiverse filled with an infinite variety of universes would reduce any astronomical unlikeliness to absolute certainty…and our universe happens to be one of those that can sustain life as we know it. For all we know, there could be an infinite variety of universes out there that are FAR more amenable to life than this one is.”
Amazing, what faith, what religion, what poppy-cock. But oh, how necessary for atheist comfort.
To my statement:
“I am curious as to what you would say about the atheists who converted to Christianity, that they truly were Atheist and somehow were just deceived? Or they were never atheist to begin with? Those are indeed the only two main options, if indeed a conversion has taken place. If not, there is also the possibility of pretense. So if those options are open for former atheist, why are they not open for former “Christians”. Why MUST it be a “No True Scotsman” fallacy?”
Which I said after the following exchange:
Derek, this is my pt.5 to your 137 post
To my statement:
“You seem to be proud of your influence over fools, but you have only influenced those who were not God’s people.”
You replied:
“Way to make your claim unfalsifiable using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy! But that’s what all false religions must do: make their claims unfalsifiable, because making them falsifiable would expose them as untrue.”
And this was my full response:
Oh really Derek? Like your view of God and the Bible? Like your claim that God does or did nothing Good? Oh, I forgot, such things only apply to those of us who are not atheists. But let’s deal with you accusation of my statement being the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. My, you must really feel intelligent abusing that fallacy as often as you do. I am curious as to what you would say about the atheists who converted to Christianity, that they truly were Atheist and somehow were just deceived? Or they were never atheist to begin with? Those are indeed the only two main options, if indeed a conversion has taken place. If not, there is also the possibility of pretense. So if those options are open for former atheist, why are they not open for former “Christians”. Why MUST it be a “No True Scotsman” fallacy?
That was my question, note your reply:
“You forgot the most likely option: changing one’s mind. Just as there are Christians who become atheists, there are atheists who become Christians. What’s so weird about that? I’ve known a few former atheists who had deeply personal “spiritual” experiences and became Muslims, Christians and Hindus. I’ve known far more former christians who studied the Bible and the history of Christianity and became atheists. One good friend of mine was an evangelical pastor for 30 years, only to lose his faith in his search to understand everything he could about Christianity. People change based on their experiences.”
But you did not answer my question. And no, I did not forget “change of mind”, that is included in my “converted to Christianity” atheist would say they were “deceived”, you know full well you would not just chalk it up to a change of mind. Not the way you have been going after God and Christians. But the bigger question is why are you avoiding my point. If one clear possibility is that they were never truly biblical Christians, why must my claim be a No True Scotsman fallacy? Is it not because you can’t address what constitutes a Christian? I have asked you, you responded once and I refuted your false definition, and you never replied or countered my refutation. You just continued with your assumed false definition and now again you falsely accuse me of a fallacy. But you accuse me of not answering your arguments.
You just keep repeating a refuted argument:
“But you certainly are guilty of a No True Scotsman fallacy. Look it up and see for yourself. It’s just a way that believers use to make the claim that people who leave the faith we’re never “truly” believers. It helps them save face when people leave their religion in droves. Most religions are guilty of this fallacy.”
Sad, I don’t care about what religions do to save face; I need you to stay focused on what I am asking you. How do you know they were indeed biblical Christians when you can’t define what a biblical Christian is? And if indeed it is possible that they were not biblical Christians, why are you harping on the No True Scotsman fallacy?
To my statement:
“Again a false comparison. It makes sense, but you say it doesn’t to avoid admitting it.”
To my statement:
“You are not really concerned about saving people from their faith in God; you are a servant of Satan, seeking to turn away people from their faith, because you hate the idea of being accountable to God.”
You replied:
“More ridiculous Christian logic. For me to not believe in God because I hate the idea of being accountable to him makes as much sense as not believing in gravity because I hate the idea of being accountable for jumping out of a building.”
Again a false comparison. It makes sense, but you say it doesn’t to avoid admitting it. a Common tactic. No matter, you will answer to God for your insolence.
You replied:
“HOW is it a false comparison? See, you keep making bold assertions like this without walking through the argument. So many of your arguments amount to this sort of “Nuh-uh!” as the sum total of your argument. If someone really believes something exists, denying its existence doesn’t make it go away. Just as it’s stupid to believe in but pretend gravity doesn’t exist so you can jump off buildings safely, it would be stupid to believe in but pretend God doesn’t exist so you can avoid going to hell. That is an apt analogy.”
Derek, for someone who loves to site logical fallacies, you are not good at applying them, nor are you any good at comparatives. Even your adjustment of your original comparison is silly.
You said:
‘For me to not believe in God because I hate the idea of being accountable to him makes as much sense as not believing in gravity because I hate the idea of being accountable for jumping out of a building.”
Someone not believing in gravity because they hate the idea of being accountable for jumping out of a building, is irrational and would suggest mental illness. Someone denying the existence of God because they resent the idea of being accountable to him is not only plausible, but atheists have acknowledged this. So, for you to trivialize it is only more proof of your denial and your inability to have an honest dialogue.
Note your updated version but first you said:
“If someone really believes something exists, denying its existence doesn’t make it go away.”
This is not necessarily true, because it would depend on that thing that they believed actually existing. Otherwise their denial would be inconsequential. Come on Derek, Think!
Now your update for damage control:
“Just as it’s stupid to believe in but pretend gravity doesn’t exist so you can jump off buildings safely, it would be stupid to believe in but pretend God doesn’t exist so you can avoid going to hell. That is an apt analogy.”
First, I said nothing about hell, but you through that in I guess for effects. You also included believing and yet pretending not to believe so you can jump. Well, that is also an act of a mentally disturbed person. Not at all my statement or anything like it. People believe in God but pretend not to all the time, so that they can do things that they know people who believe in God should not be doing, that is, while they are around others and do not want them to mentions to them there contradiction. You know this, so why pretend this is something irrational? You really need to stop this Derek.
I said:
“I’m still praying for you.”
To which you replied:
“Shall I ask the local Satanic Temple community to pray to Satan to deliver you from Christianity? No? Why not? Because you think Satan is an evil monster? Well, you know I think your God is an evil monster, so do you think I would appreciate you praying to your God for me? Do you not realize how condescending that is?”
And I thought you said you were fore freedom of religion?
Didn’t you say:
“Again, I believe in freedom of and from religion, not the abolishment of religion”
Oh, I get it, just don’t practice my religion towards you.
Very interesting.
For the record, Satan is an evil monster, God is not.
LikeLike
November 16, 2023 at 9:00 am
@Preacherteacher, did you ever get my email address from Jason?
LikeLike
November 16, 2023 at 12:07 pm
Yes Scalia, and I sent you several email. I thought you were just busy and could not reply.
LikeLike
November 16, 2023 at 2:29 pm
That’s very odd. I haven’t gotten any of them. Perhaps they’re in my spam folder. I’ll give it another look.
LikeLike
November 23, 2023 at 6:34 am
As you may have guessed, my projects have ramped up again. But I thought I would drop in during a spare moment to see if you had any answer to my Infinite Universes Problem for God (IUP).
Unfortunately, it seems that most of your responses are just rehashing insults. How disheartening. Like most apologists whose fallacious arguments don’t impress atheists, you’ve turned into a petty snowflake. It’s just disappointing that you’ve been reduced to this. What do you hope to accomplish with such childish behavior? /SMH
Regardless, I’m really not interested in trading pointless barbs and feeding into your victimhood delusion anymore, so feel free to believe whatever nonsense you care to believe about me. I honestly couldn’t care less. What matters to me is whether or not you can counter my claims.
And in regards to that, you DID manage to respond to my main question—the IUP…but all you did was reference a post you made long ago that had already been addressed? Is that really the best you could do? Sigh.
Okay, let’s break it down again one last time. I’m hoping the rational part of your mind kicks in and truly grasps the arguments, but I’m not holding out much hope:
“I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that because God is “all knowing”, that God “avoided” creating a reality in which everything was perpetually perfect and no harm or pain was suffered by anyone.”
My argument is that he COULD have created such a world. If you believe heaven is a real place that is free of sin, misery, pain, etc., then clearly God COULD have created Earth the same way.
“That is your and other rebellious human centered thinkers idea, who thinks our reality is all about you. It is not.”
Non sequitur and a strawman argument, presumably intended to deflect from the unpleasant conclusion. I never made the claim that reality is all about me or anyone else, nor do I believe that it is. This argument is about whether the God of the Bible is evil, not about you or me.
“What exist is not about humanity and nothing you say or think will change that fact.”
I AGREE. This is about God and his behavior.
“If you really read the entire Bible instead of taking your information from atheist material, you would know this. God did not “avoid” it; He simply created reality as He wanted to and for His reasons.”
Setting aside the fact that I’ve read the KJV and NIV in their entirety (along with countless passages from dozens of other Bible versions), I AGREE that Christians claim their God created reality as he wanted to and for his reasons. NONE of that is what I’m disputing (how have you really not grasped that by this point??). My argument is that his reasons are evil based on the definition of evil I’ve provided to you over and over again: behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. And by definition, EVERYTHING is optional for an all-powerful being.
“And in this “only” reality, what happened to, with, and because, happened as a result of thoughts and actions by all involved.”
No, it happened ENTIRELY as a result of thoughts and actions committed by GOD, not the people he creates. After all, if he DELIBERATELY creates a person he KNOWS will commit atrocities, and then that person commits atrocities, GOD is the one entirely at fault for both creating the evil person and the atrocities he commits. This should be self-evident to you.
“Seeking to blame God for foolish, evil or rebellious acts against Him, and the resulting punishments and suffering that followed is typical depravity thinking.”
Another attempt to deflect? AGAIN, this is about GOD’s behavior, not ours. HE is the one who deliberately created those people to become “foolish, evil or rebellious.” He KNEW this would happen but he created them anyway.
But it’s much, MUCH worse than that. He doesn’t just cause punishment and suffering to those people who commit atrocities, he DELIBERATELY creates babies to be born to mothers incapable of caring for their children, resulting in tens of thousands of them dying in agony from disease, starvation and violence. Every. Single. Day. Those babies never had a chance to commit anything, and it appears their short, horrific existence was exactly what God intended to happen…because otherwise he would have arranged for a different outcome. I’ve mentioned this very scenario to you multiple times, and all you’ve ever done is tap-dance around it, trying to make excuses for your god’s behavior. I find that deplorable.
“But it will not change the fact that you and I, and all who live and lived, will give an account to God for what we have or have not done. And no amount of hypothetical thinking, fantasizing, pontificating and philosophizing will change that.”
AGAIN irrelevant. This is about what GOD does, not us. And back to those dying babies scenario, what would those infants POSSIBLY have to account for? Crying? Soiling their diapers? Please….
“You simply use such arguments as an effort to deceived people into rejecting God, so that people like you can provide them with direction, as a God replacement.”
And there you go again with YET ANOTHER false claim. I’ve made it perfectly clear to you on multiple occasions that I’ve no intention of deceiving anybody and I’m not interested in making people reject God. I have numerous Christian friends, family and acquaintances, and I have no problem with their religious beliefs. Why not? Because they’re not Christian nationalists or creationists trying to force their immoral dogma and unscientific beliefs on society. THAT’s my agenda and I’ve made no secret of it.
“But then without God, our reality is suddenly just fine, even though the same evil exists, only now humans are the cause, and that is suddenly a minor issue. Interesting.”
AGAIN, I never made such a ridiculous claim. Evil behavior most certainly is a major problem, but the solution is to recognize that WE are responsible for making a better society, and the answer to that is to adopt secular policies intended to maximize well-being. When religion rules societies, we get the Dark Ages, witch burning, Sharia law, blasphemy beheadings, oppression, division, anti-science, superstition, cruelty, misogyny, racism, and so on. And while those problems certainly don’t entirely go away in secular societies, such behaviors are NEVER justified under secular moral systems because they’re not beholden to adherence to religious dogma.
Anyway, the reason I responded to that whole section where you “refuted” my IUP was to show you clearly that all you provided were fallacies, false accusations, deflections…and not a single argument that refutes the IUP. In other words, non-answers. THIS is why I say this argument is such a defeater for your version of Christianity.
And THAT is what I wanted to be sure of before I moved on. I’ve given you EVERY opportunity to defend your conviction that God is good, and you’ve failed. Spectacularly. So I think we’re done here, but I do encourage you to examine your beliefs and seriously reconsider them. Because if you have nothing but non-answers as your BEST defense for your God’s behavior…it should be evident to you that the god you worship is evil.
LikeLike
November 23, 2023 at 8:52 pm
Dumbo the Dingbat writes:
Derek has already been refuted, yet he continues to push an idea merely because he came up with it (or thinks he has). Actually, as Preacherteacher points out, the idea isn’t new and has been addressed. Dingbats normally don’t research a matter before trumpeting it as if it were novel.
Anyway, Post 130 contains the links and description of which posts to read for a thorough refutation of this so-called infinite worlds problem. See also Post 131 for the actual post in the linked thread which directly addresses this argument.
Normal people would try to find a solution to a refutation to their arguments. Not Dumbo. He just ignores it as if it doesn’t exist (hoping that people don’t actually read the refutation).
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 29, 2023 at 8:47 am
Derek this is my reply to your
158 November 23, 2023 at 6:34am
You said
“Unfortunately, it seems that most of your responses are just rehashing insults. How disheartening. Like most apologists whose fallacious arguments don’t impress atheists, you’ve turned into a petty snowflake. It’s just disappointing that you’ve been reduced to this. What do you hope to accomplish with such childish behavior? /SMH”
Derek, I am not trying to impress you, and your calling me names like snowflake, will not protect you from being exposed. It is however hypocritical of you to call me a snowflake while complaining about how I addressed you. But then hypocrisy is an important part of your intellectual approach to dialogue is it not? And your shameful effort to convey what you claim is my reduction to childish behavior, to avoid facing your dishonesty about our dialogue is pathetic, since anyone can read our full discussion here. So I am intrigued by your amazing faith that sincere people will not be able to see through your games.
You continued:
“Regardless, I’m really not interested in trading pointless barbs and feeding into your victimhood delusion anymore, so feel free to believe whatever nonsense you care to believe about me. I honestly couldn’t care less. What matters to me is whether or not you can counter my claims.”
Awww, should I be devastated that you are not interested in “trading pointless barbs and feeding into what you delusionally view as victimhood?. I have been telling you for a while now that we could not have an intelligent dialogue because you are not capable of doing so. This thread has demonstrated the kind of person that you are. It has certainly revealed to me a great deal about you that I was determined not to assume without allowing you to express yourself. It is nice to see you admit that you don’t care about how you are perceived and that your only concern is to present your false claims and see if that can be countered, (so that you can work on coming up with better lies). You did leave that bit of information out.
You continued:
“And in regards to that, you DID manage to respond to my main question—the IUP…but all you did was reference a post you made long ago that had already been addressed? Is that really the best you could do? Sigh.”
I Notice, you did not say “refuted”, but “addressed”. What does addressed mean? Also, did you forget that you claimed that your IUP was unique? That you challenged me to prove that others had thought of it? I know you have regular memory lapses, and often forget who said what, (like when you accused Jason of saying what Scalia actually said), but really Derek. If you are going to boast, at least do so when you have something to actually boast about.
You continued:
“Okay, let’s break it down again one last time. I’m hoping the rational part of your mind kicks in and truly grasps the arguments, but I’m not holding out much hope:”
Really Derek, you think that repeating yourself is going to make a difference? And are you really serious about me being rational when you apparently are not capable of having a rational dialogue? Logic and rational is not favorable to you and you know it. So why are you pretending to be and advocate for them?
You continued. To my point:
“I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that because God is “all knowing”, that God “avoided” creating a reality in which everything was perpetually perfect and no harm or pain was suffered by anyone.”
You replied:
“My argument is that he COULD have created such a world. If you believe heaven is a real place that is free of sin, misery, pain, etc., then clearly God COULD have created Earth the same way.”
I agree that He could have, but you seem to think that because He did not, that makes Him evil. I have been asking you to explain to us why you think you are qualified to determine what God should have done, and why you think your conclusion that He is evil for not having done so is correct. You say you are basing it on your definition of “morality”. Yet you have not explained how your worldview allows for even your faulty definition of morality. Nor have you explained how you KNOW that God’s chosen reality is not the best for His purpose, or that a no suffering reality is the best for what God wants to do. Your ego is amazingly foolish. And all-knowing being certainly would know what He is doing. And being THE creator, He would certainly have the right to do it. Making robots is hardly preferable to creating beings who have the ability to choose to love and obey. Since you are clueless as to the depths of intelligent life, morality, sin, and divine decrees and plans, it is laughable that you act as if you are so brilliant that you know all about what should and could be done by a God that you claim there is no sufficient evidence for. IN the end, all will get what they deserve Based on the thinking of an all knowing, Holy God, and there will be a sinless, sufferingless reality.
To my point:
“That is your and other rebellious human centered thinkers idea, who thinks our reality is all about you. It is not.”
You replied:
“Non sequitur and a strawman argument, presumably intended to deflect from the unpleasant conclusion. I never made the claim that reality is all about me or anyone else, nor do I believe that it is. This argument is about whether the God of the Bible is evil, not about you or me.”
There you go again with your efforts to sound intelligent by injecting fallacy accusations against me to protect yourself from having to refute my argument. Like most atheist, you use logic poorly, probably because your worldview does not allow for logic. Your efforts to use it makes you look like a fish out of water.
I did not say you “claimed” it, I said you “think it”. Please stick with what I said Derek.
You do not have to claim it, you incorporate it in your arguments. You argue that God failed to make everything perfect for people, yet you say it’s all about God. If it is all about God then would not God’s actual intentions be more important than what people wanted or thought He should do? And would you not more fully and carefully discuss and examine, God’s will rather than cherry picking statements here and there to form a false representation about how evil He was?
You do indeed believe that reality is all about you and other humans, denying it does not make it not so. The conviction permeates your conversation, so either you are lying about this, or you are unaware of it. Either way it is a problem. I will further demonstrate this below.
When I said:
“What exist is not about humanity and nothing you say or think will change that fact.”
You said:
“I AGREE. This is about God and his behavior.”
But you left out, “towards people”, and you make that the issue, so it is not about God, it is about God’s behavior towards people. Derek, you are an English major, so you get the difference. Or is that pesky atheism getting in the way again?
To my point:
“If you really read the entire Bible instead of taking your information from atheist material, you would know this. God did not “avoid” it; He simply created reality as He wanted to and for His reasons.”
You replied:
“Setting aside the fact that I’ve read the KJV and NIV in their entirety (along with countless passages from dozens of other Bible versions),”
Yes, Derek, I know, you said this over and over again. The problem is that you give little indication of that accomplishment in the way you discuss the Bible. So I am justified in my doubts and about your honesty on that claim. IF you really did read through the Bible, and I doubt that you did, you did so like atheist W.C Feilds, looking for loopholes.
You continued:
“I AGREE that Christians claim their God created reality as he wanted to and for his reasons.”
But you also said that He “AVOIDED” creating a sufferingless paradise from the start. That would indicate that that was and option at His disposal that He avoided. But since He is all knowing, He knew exactly what He wanted to do. He therefore did not have to “avoid” anything. So making everything perfect without the possibility of anything going wrong was never an option for His purpose. The options of sin and in fact the event of sin WAS a part of His divine plan. You insist that is evil, and you deny, ignore or greatly diminish the guilt of humans and spirit beings that actually caused the sin and the necessity of punishment.
You are willing to acknowledge that neither you nor any of your atheist sources are more intelligent than God, but yet you think you are able to diagnose the actions of the God that you claim you don’t believe exists. This is what is so pathetic about your atheist exercise of prosecution attempts.
You argue that God’s intentions was just to make humans suffer out of evil intent. You refuse to acknowledge that His reasons for creating a reality where humans and spirits had the potential to screw things up, and would, and would experience punishments for doing so, could be anything other than evil. And you do so as if you have exposed some brilliant flaw in Christian theology. If it was not so serious a lie, (I can no longer call it an error), it would be hilarious. But the consequences of such thinking and teaching are dire.
So when you ask:
“ (how have you really not grasped that by this point??)”.
I have to reply, how have you not understood the irrationality of your point??????
You should understand this even without your English training.
You continued:
“My argument is that his reasons are evil based on the definition of evil I’ve provided to you over and over again: behavior that deliberately and unnecessarily causes harm or suffering. And by definition, EVERYTHING is optional for an all-powerful God”
But your definition of “evil” as applied to God is flawed. I have explained this to you “over and over again”, but you simply deny or just ignore it. (It seems that you are the only one permitted to do so in your world). How do you know that God’s allowing harm and suffering, or causing them are “UNNECESSARY”? Since you are not God, and since you do not know all of the details of the events, conditions and situations, it is arrogance and silly for you to act as if you are an authority on the matter, or understand enough to be able to condemn it. That has been my point.
Also, your claim that EVERYTHING IS OPTIONAL for and all powerful God is incorrect. It is a fallacy that clearly affects your conclusion. (Begging the question fallacy).
If an all powerful God is also all knowing, and Holy and sovereign, and all of the other things He is, you cannot isolate one attribute and attack Him on that one attribute, and claim to properly represent who He is. You know this, if you are indeed and English major. But even if you had no English degree, you should be able to grasp this logic. So I have to assume that you are being devious, dishonest and crafty. Such a being would not see everything as optional, He would see anything other than what He knew He wanted to, and had to do to accomplish His purpose as non-optional. And any logical thinker would also.
Also, you admit that the issue is your definition of “evil”. Yes you have stated it over and over again, but what you have not done is explain why your definition is correct? How did you come to that definition? Where does it arrive from? Do you not agree that it comes from how we humans view the actions of each other? (The answer is yes Derek, you have already committed to this). And when I asked you how does that apply to God, you just insist that it does, but you have not answered as to how or why. Because you claim that you don’t believe that God exist, you are at liberty to define Him in any manner you like, in spite of what He says about Himself. You are the dishonest prosecutor, whose goal is to discredit God by misrepresenting Him.
You can’t explain your definition, because you see, you claim that you do not believe that God exists. And because you discredit the idea of the Biblical God, you can take liberties with how you choose to describe Him. You know this Derek, you are not interested in a rational dialogue.
To my statement:
“And in this “only” reality, what happened to, with, and because, happened as a result of thoughts and actions by all involved.”
You replied:
“No, it happened ENTIRELY as a result of thoughts and actions committed by GOD, not the people he creates. After all, if he DELIBERATELY creates a person he KNOWS will commit atrocities, and then that person commits atrocities, GOD is the one entirely at fault for both creating the evil person and the atrocities he commits. This should be self-evident to you.”
No, Derek, it is not, but it seems self-evident to you because you MUST see it that way to avoid facing your guilt as a despicable sinner before a holy God. But you do prove my point that you seek to alleviate human accountability by blaming God for everything. And you do so by claiming that the biblical concept of predestination makes Him guilty of all that happens. In our second dialogue you said he FORCED EVERYONE TO DO WHAT THEY DO. You sited Proverbs 16:4, 16:9, and Jeremiah 10:32 to prove that God made people do everything that they do, including the evil that they do. But none of those verses stated that. And you are not interested in understanding the context, you simply want to use verses that seem to support your false representations of God. That is dishonest and devious.
When I point this out to you, you simply refuse to admit it because you can’t, you have lied so much and so often about this that your pride will not let you give it up. Or is it your atheism, or both?
I said:
“Seeking to blame God for foolish, evil or rebellious acts against Him, and the resulting punishments and suffering that followed is typical depravity thinking.”
How did you reply?:
“Another attempt to deflect? AGAIN, this is about GOD’s behavior, not ours. HE is the one who deliberately created those people to become “foolish, evil or rebellious.” He KNEW this would happen but he created them anyway.”
So you did hold to a “God is guilty because of His foreknowledge of what will happen” view. But in our second dialogue (35:13-14) you pretended not to hold that view. (Not nice Derek). But notice how you ignore the accountability of the wicked people. Because God knows we will do evil, does not make Him responsible for our evil acts. And He has and will punish all evil.
You continued:
“But it’s much, MUCH worse than that. He doesn’t just cause punishment and suffering to those people who commit atrocities, he DELIBERATELY creates babies to be born to mothers incapable of caring for their children, resulting in tens of thousands of them dying in agony from disease, starvation and violence. Every. Single. Day. Those babies never had a chance to commit anything, and it appears their short, horrific existence was exactly what God intended to happen…because otherwise he would have arranged for a different outcome. I’ve mentioned this very scenario to you multiple times, and all you’ve ever done is tap-dance around it, trying to make excuses for your god’s behavior. I find that deplorable.”
Derek, here again you desperately try to avoid human accountability. It is not me who is doing the tap-dancing on this issue, it is you. God does not create babies to be born to mothers incapable of caring for them, God created women with the ability to HAVE babies. Humans are responsible for bringing babies into the world when they KNOW they are not able to care for them. That is what is selfish and cruel. It is also the greed and corruption of other humans that produces the starvation and suffering of babies. Blaming a God that you claim not to believe exists, is irrational. But even if you are posing your argument to counter our view of God, you are committing a fallacy, because you don’t understand the God of the Bible sufficiently enough to properly represent Him, neither do you care to. You assume what you are trying to prove, (question begging). You misrepresent the biblical God and then you condemn Him as evil, (Strawman). You commit the formal fallacy by using false reasoning to form your arguments, and so on. You really don’t care about truth, or about people, you want to replace God and play God. I find all of this deplorable.
But as I warned you:
“..it will not change the fact that you and I, and all who live and lived, will give an account to God for what we have or have not done. And no amount of hypothetical thinking, fantasizing, pontificating and philosophizing will change that.”
You persisted in insisting it’s not about us but what God does. You said:
“AGAIN irrelevant. This is about what GOD does, not us. And back to those dying babies scenario, what would those infants POSSIBLY have to account for? Crying? Soiling their diapers? Please….”
Derek, please stop using babies. Stop hiding behind them, they are in much better shape than you are. They will not have to give account for their sin, but you will. So will their parents who played a role in their suffering while not repenting of their sins. Your game of pretending to care about people suffering when your worldview, and policies supports, contributes to all kinds of human suffering. Your lies about God contributes to human suffering. You should be embarrassed to use little babies as a tool to manipulate people. But then, why should you, your atheist worldview does not require it.
To my point:
“You simply use such arguments as an effort to deceived people into rejecting God, so that people like you can provide them with direction, as a God replacement.”
You replied:
“And there you go again with YET ANOTHER false claim. I’ve made it perfectly clear to you on multiple occasions that I’ve no intention of deceiving anybody and I’m not interested in making people reject God. I have numerous Christian friends, family and acquaintances, and I have no problem with their religious beliefs. Why not? Because they’re not Christian nationalists or creationists trying to force their immoral dogma and unscientific beliefs on society. THAT’s my agenda and I’ve made no secret of it.”
And there you go again Derek, denying the obvious as false. But you know full well that denial is not a defense or a refutation. Deceiving people while claiming not to intend to do so is typical of deceivers. Claiming not to be interested in making people reject God, while boasting about the testimonies of people who have told you that they left their faith after accessing your material, is skitsafrenic or devious. And claiming to have friends and family who are Christians of whom you have no problem with their beliefs, while not being able to define what a Christian is, is moot. (You are a mootist, Derek). A person who professes to be a Christian, but an atheist has no problem with them, is certainly not a biblical Christian. Yes, you have made your agenda clear indeed. And as I have said, you as an atheist-evolutionists have no foundation for morality, you are cleverly borrowing from my worldview while pretending to have your own source of morality. And your Evolution is as unscientific as it gets. So please stop trying to con us with your antics. The jig is up.
To my statement:
“But then without God, our reality is suddenly just fine, even though the same evil exists, only now humans are the cause, and that is suddenly a minor issue. Interesting.”
You shift into damage control mode:
“AGAIN, I never made such a ridiculous claim. Evil behavior most certainly is a major problem,”
Granted, but what I mean is that you do not attack human sin the way you attack what you think is an evil God, and you know this, so don’t play innocent.
You continued:
“but the solution is to recognize that WE are responsible for making a better society, and the answer to that is to adopt secular policies intended to maximize well-being.
But what you define as secular Derek, is also religious, you pretend that atheism is not religion, but it is. Additionally, you have not demonstrated what constitutes wellbeing is or how atheistic policies would contribute to a better human society.
You continued:
“When religion rules societies, we get the Dark Ages, witch burning, Sharia law, blasphemy beheadings, oppression, division, anti-science, superstition, cruelty, misogyny, racism, and so on. And while those problems certainly don’t entirely go away in secular societies, such behaviors are NEVER justified under secular moral systems because they’re not beholden to adherence to religious dogma.”
First, atheism is religion and so it would certainly be in that bunch. The atrocities of atheistic regimes are well known and documented. So please don’t try to con me with your morality of atheism con. And to claim that such behaviors are never justified under secular moral systems is to expose your utter disrespect for our ability to think. Your efforts to redefine what a “secular moral system” is, is comical and devious. With no “source” for morality, you have no moral system, no matter how strongly you define it as moral. Either you are self-deluded or you are a conniving deceiver. Both are bad.
You continued:
“Anyway, the reason I responded to that whole section where you “refuted” my IUP was to show you clearly that all you provided were fallacies, false accusations, deflections…and not a single argument that refutes the IUP. In other words, non-answers. THIS is why I say this argument is such a defeater for your version of Christianity.”
Derek, you are tripping on your atheist ego. And you are sustaining your trip with self-delusion about the potency of your iup argument. I clearly can’t help you there, I don’t think anyone but God could. But it certainly is not because you have not been sufficiently responded to by me and others like Scalia who did indeed thoroughly respond to your IUP in another thread. Your claims of victory on this topic is pathetic and even sad. Not sure why you keep building yourself up as some master debater who can’t be refuted, while lying, deceiving, pretending and ultra-repeating over and over and over what has been refuted. I know that it has something to do with your atheist agenda and your following. But also it clearly is connected to your massive ego. I really feel for you.
You continued:
“And THAT is what I wanted to be sure of before I moved on. I’ve given you EVERY opportunity to defend your conviction that God is good, and you’ve failed. Spectacularly. So I think we’re done here,…”
We are done? Really? O please don’t play with me Derek, are you really going away? Now that would be a miracle considering your ego and your dedication to your atheist agenda. But we shall see. With so much evidence against you here and on other threads, I would think that you would have been “done” some time ago. But that massive ego of yours will not stop. I think these kinds of engagements are some kind of therapy for you. We help you to cope with some things that you are dealing with internally and you need us to keep you busy so you don’t have to really take a look at yourself. I certainly will be kept busy for some time going over your content.
You concluded:
“but I do encourage you to examine your beliefs and seriously reconsider them. Because if you have nothing but non-answers as your BEST defense for your God’s behavior…it should be evident to you that the god you worship is evil.”
Noted, and I would encourage you to seriously examine your character, and true motives, and be more honest about your errors, pride, and your dishonesty, but that would be a waste of time, since you suffer from delusions of intellectual and moral grandeur. So instead I will just pray for you, and leave you in God’s hands. He knows what to do with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 29, 2023 at 12:58 pm
There are many examples of Derek making foolish and out right dishonest comments about what was said by others here, while he injects his twisted brand of sociological, political, medical, religious or cultural dogma into the conversation. Here is just one example.
Earlier in these thread #4 April 19, 2023 at 4:42 am derekmathias Said in response to a post by Scalia:
“Scalia, what you’re implying is that transgender people should not be accommodated in any way because of the occasional problem that occurs because of it.”
Note his claim, “because of the occasional problem that occurs because of it”?
No not because of the “occasional problem”, but because of the massive “problems” that such sick accommodations would result in. Derek intentionally trivialized the obvious major issues (some of which are clearly stated by Scalia), as if they were not itemized or discussed. Just read Scalia’ actual statement and see for yourself. #4 April 18, 2023 at 3:43 pm
It is clear that Scalia is making a sound, detailed argument for treating trans-people as medical patients and not harmless productive citizens. But rather than engage Scalia’s arguments, Derek just goes on the attack against conservatives.
He says:
“Conservatives used the same sort of arguments against gay rights by claiming gays would sexually assault straight people if they were allowed in locker rooms. To be sure, that HAS happened, but only extremely rarely, and the solution was clearly never to require some sort of test to prove heterosexuality or amp up hatred of gays. Existing laws against sexual assault suffice.”
First, the conservative arguments against “homosexual rights”, did not and do not rest on concerns about their locker room abuse conduct. It rest on the fact that sexual preference is not a civil right and should not be used to give people special protection or privileges, period.
Second, if a homosexual assaulted someone in a locker room only once, that is too many times, so pointing out its rarity is disrespectful. Not to mention the fact that many such assaults are covered up by people to protect that group of people from persecution. Just as their many other crimes.
Third, Scalia said nothing about “requiring a test for trans or homosexuality” in fact he made it clear that there was no such test. Stating: “However, on what basis do we legally decide who’s pretending?”
Neither did Scalia suggest amping up hatred of homosexuals. And existing law against sexual assault, are not the point, opening more doors for sexual assault is. But it is interesting how they are selective about how sufficient existing laws against crime is. Look up how they insist on using new laws to protect homosexuals from “bullying” when the fact is that existing laws already were sufficient. And those new laws were and are used to sneak in their homosexual agenda into the schools.
Derek then further twists the issue from what Scalia said to make his twisted point.
“Furthermore, even though straight men are overwhelmingly the people most likely to commit sexual assault (just look at the massive numbers of straight Catholic priests revealed to have sexually assaulted children throughout history), we don’t restrict men’s rights to be around women and children.”
Notice, Scalia made no defense for straight men who commit sexual abuse, nor did he advocate for restricting trans-people from being around women or children. What he said was:
“If psychologists certify that Roman is convinced he’s a child, then Roman clearly has a mental defect and needs to be kept away from children.” He was talking about a specific person and a specific certification.
But such details are not important to the likes of Derek. Also, on what bases does Derek define those priest who molested children as “straight”? Male priest who molested little male boys can hardly be defined as straight.
He continues his rhetoric:
My point is that the knee-jerk reaction against doing anything to help accommodate transgender people (even though they have been productive members of societies for many thousands of years) isn’t the answer.
Note how Derek defines objections to trans-people and their supporters demands for special rights as a knee-jerk reaction. Totally unconcerned about non-trans people’s rights, this is sick leftist-atheist rhetoric. But also notice that Derek is all about accommodating homosexual-trans people, not getting them the real-psychological or real-religious help they need to help them overcome their delusions and deprived desires. He says they have been productive members of society for thousands of years. How does he know this? And what does being a productive member of society mean? Does that exempt criminals, molesters, thief’s, murders, people who practice bestiality from their depravity because they are also productive members of society? Can you see his logic?
His foolishness continued:
“When it comes to social issues, conservatives have almost always been on the wrong side of history—including slavery, minorities and women voting, civil rights, and so on.
And just how does he define “conservatives”, and what makes those people, whoever they were back then the same as us now? It does not matter to him, you see his goal is to discredit, and he does not care how he does it. Misrepresentation is his favorite tool. And of course, there were no atheist who supported slavery, or were against minorities and women voting, and against civil rights, and so on.
His foolishness continued:
“Remember how conservatives freaked out about gay marriage, claiming it would destroy society (even though other countries had already had same-sex marriage for years without any ill effects)?”
But how does he define ill effects, and what efforts were made to determine such ill effects? Naturally, population decline, medical issue directly resulting from unnatural sex, depravity in conduct, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces, orgies, considerably larger numbers of sexual partners, Pedophilia, deliberate infection of others, would not be considered as ill effects. And in fact, to bring any of this up would be considered mean and “homophobic”.
The foolishness continued, he said:
“It turns out helping the traditionally marginalized, discriminated against and attacked become an accepted part of society doesn’t bring about the apocalypse.”
And that make defending, supporting and affirming homosexuality in any of its forms a good thing? Of course not.
He continued:
“Trans rights are new to our society, and so of course there will be teething problems and laws that need to be addressed on an individual basis.”
That is because most of human civilization has recognized its depravity throughout history. And addressing this on individual basis will not be sufficient. There are clear general steps that must be taken to prevent this depravity from occupying the place of normality in our society.
He continued:
“And there will ALWAYS be people who try to game the system.”
Like you atheist and homosexuals who have no respect for the rights of those of us who seek to maintain normal human morality?
He concluded:
“But considering the conservative record of constant alarmism and opposition to improving society for the downtrodden, persecuted and unjustly accused, I think it would be helpful to think twice before automatically throwing the marginalized under the bus.”
It is amazing how freely Derek and his kind accuse and make accusations against others while being the worst offenders of trampling on the rights of others. But the audacity to call it “improving society” and calling homosexuals “the downtrodden, persecuted and unjustly accused” is just crazy. The lives that have been damaged by homosexual activism are well documented. And there horrible intrusion into children’s books and entertainment is morally criminal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 29, 2023 at 1:00 pm
Correction:
It is amazing how freely Derek and his kind accuse and make accusations against others while being the worst offenders of trampling on the rights of others. But the audacity to call it “improving society” and calling homosexuals “the downtrodden, persecuted and unjustly accused” is just crazy. The lives that have been damaged by homosexual activism are well documented. And their horrible intrusion into children’s books and entertainment is morally criminal.
LikeLike
November 30, 2023 at 9:08 am
Good comments, Preacherteacher. I am no longer directly engaging Derek in topic debate. His penchant for reframing, straw-manning and rank dishonesty makes any attempt at productive dialog a waste of time. And as I’ve tried to make clear, this isn’t a theist/atheist thing. One of my friends is an atheist professor, and I’ve had productive dialog with intelligent atheists over the years.
Derek is a wannabe intellectual whose ego has been propped by his followers online. His one talent is his ability to market atheism to the atheist choir and to beguile unstable, ignorant Christians. He considers his earning thousands of followers as validation of his tactics, and it has boosted his ego to narcissistic heights. That’s why it’s impossible for him to admit the most obvious errors and why one cannot have an intelligent conversation with him in spite of good faith attempts. He’s made so many stupid comments about theism, he cannot cede any argumentative point due to its contradicting an assertion he’s made elsewhere. Case in point, I’ve told him multiple times that he’s misrepresenting the Christian position on morality and how Christianity has defined “good.” Now, any normal person would at the very least look up how those terms are defined, but Derek cannot do that. If he found out that what he said about goodness was wrong, it would vacate his strawman arguments in his arsenal against Christian morality, not to mention admitting that he’s been in gross error for a long time. So, instead of doing the principled thing, he marches on as if nothing’s been said. That’s a clear indicator of a corrupt heart.
So, I just point out that he routinely misreads (deliberately) arguments and make myself available to answer questions from others in the event they’re confused by anything he’s said. Nonetheless, your highlighting his fallacies is helpful as well. Thank you!
LikeLike
November 30, 2023 at 10:15 am
I certainly agree with you Scalia, I have had many discussions with atheists, and while some suffered from the same condition as Derek, others were clearly more reasonable and honest, and I found our dialogues useful and productive. What is worse about Derek is that he uses Christian platforms to test his foolishness so he can gauge the effectiveness of his lies and then revamp them when they are refuted without admitting they have been refuted. Additionally, he seeks as you said, and as he has boasted, to beguile unstable and ignorant Christians. I don’t think we have seen the last of him, but I refuse to allow him to dominate this thread while we are around.
LikeLike