Excuse Me Mr. Preacher Man: Doesn’t Perpetual Mean Permanent?

Posted in Daylight Atheism, Responses, Science, Thinking Critically on  | 7 minutes | 31 Comments →

A certain subset of Arabs and Israelis refrain from battle during the holiday of Ramadan, but seeing as how I'm not much a respecter of so-called "holy-days" in the first place, I'll spare no mercy to Ebonmuse this beautiful Thanksgiving afternoon.

Besides, the 'wife' (and 'baby') are out-of-town along with the rest of my usual 'crew' up here, so I've got ample writing time today. Which shouldn't matter, as although we'll certainly give it a fair shake, we don't need more than eight syllables to expose the flaw in Ebonmuse's so-called "Lesson of Autumn Leaves," and I already accomplished that in the title.

Quote:

..the Earth's major monotheisms teach us to desire [permanence]: a world immutably fixed in its course, never to change again. They want the race to be run, the final victory to be attained, and all strife and toil ended. They want existence sorted and classified so that they'll never know pain or loss again, while their enemies will suffer in infamy for all eternity. But as we learn from the autumn leaves, that isn't the way of nature. The world does not trade in permanence, but in perpetual rebirth and renewal. —Ebonmuse, (bold mine)

Ebonmuse then goes on with poetic language intended to illustrate this "perpetual rebirth and renewal" in nature:

Observe nature, and you'll see this pattern at every level. Mountains are thrust up and then worn away to nothing. Rivers and streams flow to the sea, become choked with life and silt up, and then fan out and cut new courses across the landscape. Deserts and grasslands sweep back and forth, impinging on each other's boundaries. Plants sprout in the spring, bloom in the summer, die in the fall, and are reborn after the winter. Even within our bodies, new cells are always being created as old ones are destroyed and recycled. In every case, what we see is rebirth and renewal – not a state of changeless stasis, as the religious wish for, but a constant, dynamic tension between destruction and rebuilding; an endless flux of old forms passing away as new ones arise.

Well, I've never denied his skill with words, but it's too late: Ebonmuse has already offered us a logically invalid claim, not to mention another scientifically misleading one. What alarmed me is that nobody in the thread even questioned any of that, of course. Instead — like any other group of faithful supplicants — the atheists over there seem to have been potentially taken in by the flowery language, content to simply lavish their preacher with their versions of Amen and Hallelujah.

Is that what "freethought" has become these days? Ebon's post was sub-titled A Humanist Sermon. Perhaps humanism — or atheism for that matter — aren't really that different from religion after all?

The salient point is this: perpetual means permanent. Those are the eight syllables which expose the flaw in Ebon's piece.  When he says,

The world does not trade in permanence, but in perpetual rebirth and renewal,

By definition, he's offered a logically invalid claim. The specific offender is contradiction. Let the world = W. Let permanence = P. Let perpetual rebirth and renewal = PRR. Ebon's two-tier statement then becomes,

1) W, ~P;

2) W, PRR;

Now, there's nothing wrong with that statement — given P ~PRR — but the problem is that P = PRR.  Perpetual by definition is that which possess the attribute of, "continuing or enduring forever; everlasting; continuing or continued without intermission or interruption; ceaseless." Permanent by definition is that which possesses the attribute of, "existing perpetually; everlasting, esp. without significant change, intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable conditions, long-lasting or nonfading." P = PRR.

Returning to the thesis, perpetual means permanent. Wcan't "trade in" both P and ~P at the same time, so we have a contradiction. Ebon's a great writer, but all that stuff his flowery language depicts — mountains being thrust up and worn away, rivers coming and going, deserts and grasslands sweeping back and forth, plants sprouting in the spring, blooming in the summer, dying in the fall, and being reborn after the winter — all that stuff reflects a permanent cycle (albeit one headed towards changeless stasis) that extends as far back as we know. He criticizes theists for desiring and believing in permanence, but ironically, his own worldview affords him no other luxury than to argue the permanence of rebirth and renewal of nature. Which — by the way — is not necessarily a pattern "at every level" in nature. Hence, scientifically misleading.

While permanent rebirth and renewal is certainly the norm within nature, science suggests that nature is apparently the ultimate discontinuity. The cycle of "perpetual rebirth and renewal" we observe in nature cannot be extrapolated to the macroscopic level, i.e. to the existence of the universe itself. Rather, every voice in today's cosmological chorus harmonizes resoundingly on the note that as far as we can tell, our universe began to exist some 15bya. Add to that our Laws of Thermodynamics — which according to all current understanding demand a death from which this universe cannot possibly be reborn — and we see that nature is headed on an inexorable course towards exactly the permanent and changeless stasis Ebon criticizes and falsely accuses all theists for believing in. According to every proof of today's astronomical sciences, nature itself is discontinuous; not a continuous ebb and flow of atomic reverberation like the one we indulge temporarily therein.

Tell me: if we grant that the cycle of rebirth and renewal really is permanent as Ebon claims, then what makes it so unreasonable for any person to suppose that we may all one day live again? That nature might just repeat itself in yet another glorious iteration of thermonuclear song and dance? That God might not "re-roll the dice" one, two, or infinity more times? What makes it so unreasonable or arrogant to suppose that an "alternate Earth and Cosmos" may indeed be possible? After all, similar ideas are at least plausible enough to entertain today's top theoretical physicists (cf. Schrödinger's Cat), so what's really that unreasonable about a Superposition of potential states on a macroscopic level of nature? 

I see an analogous attitude in those who deny the possibility of life on other planets.

Lest my rebuttal be dismissed as semantics, let it be known that I understand the main thrust of Ebon's post: that the theist position is ultimately the arrogant one for desiring permanence, and that theists want "changeless stasis." Folks, that theists want "changeless stasis" is a blanket statement at best, a strawman at worst. If God exists and we can live eternally, changeless stasis becomes an ontological impossibility. Who is Ebon to tell you or I that because we're believers, we must ultimately believe in some unsatisfying state of changeless stasis, especially when the very universe Ebon touts as sufficient to explain its own existence relentlessly stampedes towards changeless stasis itself? At the very least, isn't that a bit.. presumptuous? Possibly — dare I put myself at risk of accusations of anti-atheist bigotry — maybe even a tiny bit arrogant?

Ebon criticizes the believer's desire of a world where "all strife and toil [has] ended" as if wanting such a world is somehow a bad thing. If this is a humanist sermon, what is the message? What is Ebonmuse actually preaching here?


31 comments

  1. Steve Bowen

     says...

    That’s that nit picked, next….?

  2. cl

     says...

    Nit-picked my ass, Steve. If you can’t see,
    1) the hypocrisy of Ebon using “perpetual rebirth and renewal” to accuse theists of desiring “permanence;”
    2) where Ebon clearly strawmans theists by accusing them of desiring “changeless stasis” when that’s what his own beliefs demand the universe is coming to; and
    3) that “perpetual rebirth and renewal” is not the pattern at every level of nature,
    then you need to take your Scarlet A / DA blinders off.

  3. Gideon

     says...

    It’s a bad idea using nature in any analogy directed at disproving God’s existence. Nature owes it’s existence and sustenance to God, where God is totally self-existent and sustaining. Nature changes as a result of pre-programmed genetic prompts, usually in response to external influences applied against it. Infidels claim that this is proof of “natural selection” although the term “selection” implies a conscious action.
    Again, gross ignorance fuels the infidel’s attacks. That Christians somehow look forward to seeing infidels roast for eternity is maybe what he likes to think, but, it’s only his opinion. Also, no God I would serve would roast anyone, even infidels, for eternity. It’s not consistent with what scripture teaches, nor is it consistent with God’s character. Man is the only creature that takes any pleasure at warring and creating misery, with himself, and other creatures. And, the fact that God doesn’t blast infidels to the atoms He constructed them from, for their blasphemous bullshit, is proof of His forbearance and love. He certainly wouldn’t have to wait till they died to do it!
    This Ebonmuse character is one of the more wordy infidels I’ve run across, and loves flowery language, and so does his fan club of readers. I wouldn’t recommend anyone go there if they’re looking for truth, and not just because infidel reasoning is 99% bullshit and 1% crap, but because they’d probably need to take a linguist along with them to translate what I’m sure many of those commenters really don’t know what they’re saying, themselves.
    It may look and sound pretty, but, that’s what they said about Ted Bundy, too!

  4. jason

     says...

    “Nit-picked my ass, Steve. If you can’t see…”
    cl – well done, sir. well done.

  5. cl

     says...

    That may have a been a bit harsh to Steve Bowen, whom I respect for his usual impartiality and certainly didn’t mean to offend, but I just can’t stand it sometimes. I know that atheists are – like Christians – people that truly mean good and well (for the most part – we all know there are exceptions in all groups). I just get SO SICK of this “us vs. them” mentality where either side has to get all vocal about the perceived superiority of their own position. It’s exactly THAT “haughty-taughty” attitude that prevents people from realizing their own farts smell, too. Everybody gets taken in by authorities from time to time. I see this weird tendency amongst certain skeptics and atheists towards the idea that because they are skeptics and atheists, they are somehow immune from blind faith or an unquestioning attitude.
    A great number of the people at Ebon’s site are pretty crude in their mocking of believers, and everybody denies that there’s as much as even an inkling of similarity between atheism and organized religion. He himself said that ANYBODY who believes in demons, angels, spirits, etc. is “mockworthy” among other things, and as we saw in the post I criticized, he seems to forget that it’s his beliefs that ultimately preach “changeless stasis” because that’s exactly the course entropy is apparently fixed PERMANENTLY upon.

  6. Steve Bowen

     says...

    That may have a been a bit harsh to Steve Bowen, whom I respect for his usual impartiality and certainly didn’t mean to offend,

    Thank you, and don’t worry I’m a very difficult guy to offend.

    Lest my rebuttal be dismissed as semantics,

    Well, you do have form in this area and the first paragraph or so is pretty much that.
    I think there is always a difficulty, even for someone as eloquent as Ebonmuse, around making generalizations. He knows, as do I that not all theists are rampant 6 day creationists drooling in anticipation of the rapture and an afterlife of perpetual (that word again) harp jam sessions. The problem for atheists in general is that it’s really hard to pin down what theists actually do believe except that for some reason they prefer to live their lives as if codified fables were more descriptive of reality than observation of it. Even so a post full of caveats, qualifiers and No True Scotsmen would make pretty boring reading.

  7. Gideon

     says...

    Ever since creation, 6000 years ago, after a LITERAL six-day creation event, infidels and believers have been enemies. It’s just a fact of life. It will always be that way, and, any Christian that says different isn’t working in the real world.
    Christ told them all that once they joined His fellowship, they would automatically become estranged from the worldly. I accepted that when I joined, and have no desire whatsoever to please infidels or apologize to them for what I believe. They certainly don’t apologize to me for what they believe, so that’s all there is to know. In fact, I take great pleasure in letting them know that they can’t bully me into accepting their dogma! They might be able to intimidate some scientist or professor into giving up any idea that ID is a viable alternative, however, my paycheck doesn’t depend upon their approval of what I think and do.
    “Codified fables” is an good description of the ‘science’ cooked up by infidels who are always speculating on primordial events that they could neither observe or record. Yet, they attack Christians for their faith? LOL! Never… NEVER think you need to please an infidel!
    The longer I live, the more I thank God for infidels… they’re the cheapest amusement going!

  8. cl

     says...

    Gideon,

    NEVER think you need to please an infidel!

    Oh believe me, I don’t! I don’t feel the need to apologize for what I believe, either. I do on occasion apologize to people, but that’s usually in the interest of 1) being real, and 2) further dialog. Say, ‘dya hear about Dawkins declining to debate Craig? You know, he shouldn’t give a believer “credibility” by debating them… [YARF]

  9. non

     says...

    Ever since creation, 6000 years ago, after a LITERAL six-day creation event, infidels and believers have been enemies.

    Except for when we’ve been friends.

  10. Gideon

     says...

    cl, Dawkins is the quintessential infidel. They don’t debate, they tell! It’s their way or no way. Dawkins riles pretty easy when he’s pressed, knowing deep down that he’s full of shit on the best of days.
    As you know, I don’t believe in the existence of any “atheist”. Everyone worships someone or some THING. Infidels worship themselves, preferring that over worshiping God. The Bible calls that idolatry. Whatever you want to call it, it’s a faith-based worship system placing trust in man’s own ability to determine his own destiny. Infidels also go one step further in ASSUMING their faith upon others. The fascist mentality prevailing in our institutes of learning proves this, where evolution is the only ‘science’ allowed to be taught or accredited.
    The infidel muscles in and asserts that his/her ‘science’ is the only credible explanation for our origin and existence, with any dissenters looked upon with the ever-present derision so characteristic of the arrogant.
    Withe the possible exception of Christopher Hitchens, I’d say that Dawkins has the market cornered on arrogance.
    An arrogance not born of knowledge.

  11. Dominic Saltarelli

     says...

    I followed the link and read the ‘sermon’. Is this post of yours some sort of attempt at humor? Ebonmuse is saying everything eventually dies, so the belief eternal life for any given individual is false.
    You’re just making yourself look bad, here, should’ve just ignored his little ‘sermon’. The P = PRR bit was just too over the top. A system that never changes = A system that always changes? You…. actually…. made that argument?
    Let’s just stay focused on the nature of consciousness threads. I think you’re onto something with what you call the ‘wCCH’.

  12. Anonymous

     says...

    Gideon
    “Ebonmuse is saying everything eventually dies, so the belief eternal life for any given individual is false.”
    Let’s take it a step further. Since everything dies, why bother living at all? As soon as we’re able, why not kill ourselves?
    LOL! Jimbo Crawford would love this guy!
    The POTENTIAL for living eternally is what interests the non-nihilist. After all, we have bodies that are designed to, essentially, live indefinitely. The brain has virtually unlimited data-storage capacity. Nothing science has come up with, thus far, even comes close to it’s complexity. Science can’t even tell us why we age at all, in fact, we shouldn’t, given the fact the body keeps regenerating itself. We are practically new people every seven years!
    According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the human brain “is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person’s lifetime.” (1976 Edition, Volume 12, page 998) The book How the Brain Learns, by David A. Sousa, states: “For all practical purposes, the capacity of the brain to store information is unlimited.”—Page 78, Second Edition.
    Now, if the infidel reasoning is correct, and man is the result of a freak accident, and that he only evolves in accordance within the parameters defined by his environment, why all of this potentiality?
    In the 19th Century, science was dogmatic that no speed beyond (coincidentally?) that of a steam locomotive was possible, certainly not flight! Germs didn’t exist. This and that was impossible… simply on the basis that arrogant men in charge hadn’t seen it with their own eyes, and no one else was going to believe it, either, by gum! How far shall we go with this? Throughout time, man’s self-imposed limitations have been breached one by one, proving all the previously-held ‘darling’ theories bunk!
    Basically, we are Mustangs content to back out of the garage onto the driveway, in the morning, to sit there until dark, then drive back into the garage, again. That’s how I view the ‘illustrious’ science of the infidel.
    Narrow-minded thinking and biased hostility toward new (and old) ideas, are the trademarks of the pseudo-intellectual crowd. Faith and/or philosophy is the algebra of the arithmetic imposed upon us by the self-styled ‘science’, preached as required learning by humanist gurus with an agenda of destroying the image of God in mankind.

  13. cl

     says...

    Steve Bowen,
    See? That you came back and left an additional comment proves there was more to say than “nit-picking.” Although, I can understand why an atheist would ONLY see “nit-picking” in my response, too: else, they’d have to address the actual problems one runs into when thinking about what Ebon’s post logically entails, which is a bunch of problems and inconsistencies.
    Dominic,
    As you know, I appreciate you being a straight shooter. Hopefully you’ll appreciate me doing the same here:

    Is this post of yours some sort of attempt at humor?

    No, it’s not, and I love your ability to gloss right over salient points and twist words. It’s not a comparison between a system that never changes and a system that always changes; that’s the flaw of Ebon’s piece. The Bible doesn’t advocate “a system that never changes,” and in full reality, a “system that never changes” describes exactly the post-entropy state of our universe. So tell me bro, who believes in changeless stasis?

    The P = PRR bit was just too over the top. A system that never changes = A system that always changes? You…. actually…. made that argument?

    No, Dominic, actually I didn’t make that argument; you did, and I don’t appreciate you tryin’ to pass your weak argument off as mine. You, Ebon and all atheists are the ones that ultimately believe in “changeless stasis” as the final reality. Permanent is perpetual by definition. Ebon says “the world doesn’t trade in permanence, but perpetual rebirth and renewal.” Yet, world DOES trade in permanence: the permanent state of rebirth and renewal Ebon uses to try to loft his philosophy to the sky. It’s false, it ignores the facts of science, and it’s a contradiction.
    There’s nothing that makes Ebon’s haughty-taughty “I’m a rational atheist” outlook on life any better than any other person’s. It’s all vain boasting, and I’m within my right to call him on it. If that makes you think I’m “bad,” well… I don’t write for your approval, pal. For that matter, you look “bad” to me when you just drop out whenever you want to, as opposed to actually getting all the way through the questions.
    Seriously Dominic, think about it for two seconds: here’s Ebon trying to make believers look bad by claiming they desire “permanence” and “changeless stasis.” Yet, believers don’t desire either one of those things as any sort of general rule, and if God is real and life can be eternal, “changeless stasis” becomes impossible. Further, it is the ATHEIST who believes in “changeless stasis” because that’s exactly the extent of what science currently permits us to believe about the universe.
    If I wrote up some nonsense that you didn’t believe in as an atheist, and I then attempted to paint atheists as believing in said nonsense, you’d think there was a problem. Any atheist would.

    Let’s just stay focused on the nature of consciousness threads. I think you’re onto something with what you call the ‘wCCH’.

    I appreciate that, Dominic, I really do, and believe me, that’s my main focus right now. Doesn’t mean it’s my only focus, and if I see some atheist writing a bunch of subtle mistruths about what I believe, you can know I’m going to respond. Also, don’t forget that my entire consciousness series is partially in response to Ebon’s AGITM – which of course he’ll conveniently never discuss with trolls.
    Gideon,

    The POTENTIAL for living eternally is what interests the non-nihilist.

    Good point, as well as those that follow. And, not sure how much you’ve read from him, but Dominic actually seems like a good and freethinking guy, not the “narrow-minded infidel” like the ones we’re used to over at SI’s. Which is why I found his one-sidedness in this comment so disappointing.

  14. Dominic Saltarelli

     says...

    Dude, theists desire living forever, never dying again. Yes or no?
    That’s as complicated as it gets.

  15. Dominic Saltarelli

     says...

    It wasn’t much of a dig at you, but here it does seem as though you’re stretching desperately to try and prove him wrong somehow, on something. Like someone is keeping score.

  16. Steve Bowen

     says...

    Codified fables” is an good description of the ‘science’ cooked up by infidels who are always speculating on primordial events that they could neither observe or record.

    I have some sympathy with this in that cosmologists descriptions of events in say the first few seconds of the universe’s existence are probably not “true” as such. However they are models which are predictive and therefore testable (at least in theory, sometimes we don’t have the technology yet). The point is that should the observations ever contradict the model, the model will change. Theists sometimes present this as a bad thing, as though science should be expected to get these things right first time, but this stuff is really difficult. As you say primordial events we cannot witness {although with a big enough telescope…)

    In the 19th Century, science was dogmatic that no speed beyond (coincidentally?) that of a steam locomotive was possible, certainly not flight! Germs didn’t exist. This and that was impossible…

    all except for the science and scientist that went on to break the sound barrier, land on the moon and all but eliminate polio. You could only write the above sentence because the self correcting nature of science has given you that knowledge.

  17. Gideon

     says...

    “You could only write the above sentence because the self correcting nature of science has given you that knowledge.”
    LOL! That’s right! Science IS always correcting itself. God has never had to do that! His principles are as valid today as they were thousands of years ago. How many corrections has science made in that time? Correction implies fallibility, does it not? Meaning, it was wrong, at one time. How do you know it’s not wrong now?
    Don’t worry, Steve, you’re not the only infidel that’s thrown that worn-out argument at me.
    You won’t be the last, either.

  18. Steve Bowen

     says...

    Gideon
    Science does not ever claim to be infallible. That is why all models are “theories” and not facts. The problem with God, or more precisely, the reports of God as found in scriptures of all creeds is that once he’s wrong, as he has been shown to be, he will always be wrong.
    Look, the reason I engage with cl is that he often raises very interesting ontological arguments; he is corect IMHO when he states that materialistic world views cannot categorically explain existence as we observe it. Arguments at the extremes result in paradoxes that so far seem un-resolvable and that is why I will always accept that some Deistic explanation is a possibility. Philosophically, my working assumption is that an intelligent prime mover is a redundent necessity, but that I accept is an article of faith. However in terms of scripture and theistic interpretations of God, science has already categorically exposed the flaws and human experience has outgrown the morality. On that score there is no going back for me.

  19. Gideon

     says...

    “Gideon, science does not ever claim to be infallible. That is why all models are “theories” and not facts.”
    I got tired of dealing in speculation, Steve, that’s why I became a Christian. Then, I had to go through the inevitable round of determining which creed had the correct hermeneutics. Admittedly, there are a lot of weird interpretations out there. It took a few years, but, in all of that time, no infidel could coax me back to my former agnosticism. There simply isn’t the evidence in the fossil record or microbiological world that supports a chance-happening and self-sustaining reality.
    In most of my dealings with infidels, I see a profound ignorance of what constitutes true Christianity. I’m always getting the eternally-burning sinners in hell-fire scenario thrown at me, and the “arbitrary and vindictive” OT God going around killing all those “helpless infidel babies” routine. I’ve spent more than just a few hours studying scripture in context, and pretty well ignored many traditional views.
    I’m not an eternal-hellfire proponent, man isn’t, nor does he possess an immortal soul, only God is eternal. (1 Tim. 6:15,16) Nor do I believe in the concept of “helpless” infidel children, not when I see modern-day, AK-47-toting African kids going around necklacing adults and butchering one another like hogs. I don’t observe pagan holidays or festive seasons like Christmas or Easter… Halloween, etc. In fact, I observe pretty much nothing that infidels like to accuse Christians of being hypocritical about.
    I will admit that I’m not above ‘correcting’ someone that pisses me off, physically, verbally, and/or textually when the occasion seems to warrant it. I’m not offering any excuses, that’s just the way it is with me. Like most other Christians in history and modern times, I never shed my humanity when I accepted Christ as my Substitute, after all, that’s why He’s a Substitute, to effect what I cannot do… justify myself on my own merit. If I were claiming to be God, yes, then you’d have a case against me.
    So, Steve, for you to categorically and emphatically assert out of one side of your mouth that science is only based upon theories, then categorically and emphatically assert out the other side that there is no other way to see things… well, forgive me for not getting any warm, tingly feelings in my lower areas over your remonstrations!
    Fact is, I’ve always fully acknowledged that there are people that can’t/won’t be shown any proof of intelligent design, and I’m good with that. Now and then, a Jimbo Crawford will show up and expose his gnarly little troll backside for me to kick, which provides some diversion and amusement when things inevitably bog down in the pseudo-intellectual debating department. Otherwise, when you really get down to it, there isn’t much use any of us blogging, unless we just like seeing our words pop up on a screen in front of us.
    Maybe I do need the comfort of a God to give me some sense of purpose and to comprehend what is basically an insane world. So-called ‘science’ doesn’t give us any hope. It raises more questions than it answers, and only promises that you die and will have basically lived for nothing, being as you’re a chance happening, anyway, with no other real significance. It practically preaches immorality, because there can be no existence of, or even concept of evil in the evolutionary “model” as you call it. Everything is reduced to a clinical, lifeless, sterile pseudo-existence, when you negate the ‘human’ factor that only faith can inject. Otherwise, you’re just another organism of no significance.
    Fortunately, I do happen to see a logical process happening with faith in intelligent design and in divine intervention. And, as I always like to point out to those that think they accomplish something by stymieing my attempts to reason with them, I’m really only responsible for what I believe.
    God doesn’t like it when we try to do His job for Him… and there’s no one on this planet that is happier to let Him do His own work than me!

  20. Steve Bowen

     says...

    Gideon
    Phew! where to start? and with a quick aside to say apologies to cl as we are way off topic here.

    In most of my dealings with infidels, I see a profound ignorance of what constitutes true Christianity. I’m always getting the eternally-burning sinners in hell-fire scenario thrown at me, and the “arbitrary and vindictive” OT God going around killing all those “helpless infidel babies” routine.

    I’ve already said in my short life around here that atheists often find it difficult to understand what theist in general believe. Your brand of Christianity will be different from anothers, your literal interpretation will differ from anothers “literal” interpretation. Some elements of fundamental Christianity would say you are not a Christian at all, as would some liberals. We get into no true scotsman territory very quickly here. The reason atheists /infidels go back to the scriptures and the O.T in particular is precisely because they are so often at odds with what Christians of any stripe actually say. This is because (I believe) they were written by fallible humans, not infallible gods and can’t be imported wholesale into a coherent world view. If they could there would only be one right way to be a Christian, in fact you say yourself

    Then, I had to go through the inevitable round of determining which creed had the correct hermeneutics.

    which kind of proves the point.
    This is interesting

    I got tired of dealing in speculation, Steve, that’s why I became a Christian.

    Do you mean you are looking for certainty rather than truth? I know you will say faith gives both, but only as far as I can see if you can put up with a lot of cognitive dissonance. As soon as you try to apply any physical observation to the world you will end up with questions about how to reconcile this with scripture, and the deeper you look the more questions get raised. I have a Muslim engineer friend who somehow manages this quite well, he will happily work with radio-active materials with half lives of millions of years, yet faithfully claim the world to be a few thousand years old! I’m stunned, don’t know how he does it, beats me. Maybe you have the same skill.
    I want to try and unpack this one…

    So, Steve, for you to categorically and emphatically assert out of one side of your mouth that science is only based upon theories, then categorically and emphatically assert out the other side that there is no other way to see things…

    First to take a cl like approach, semantics: To say only upon theories is to mis-characterise the nature of the scientific method (I suspect you know this already)since theories in the scientific sense are hypotheses which have withstood attempts to falsify them by experiment (I accept that a lot of science doesn’t actually happen in quite this classical way, but essentially this is a true statement). Science accepts that, because we don’t know what else is out there, something may come along that upsets the theory. This is not a weakness, it is a strength that over time has led to the technology both theists and infidels alike take for granted and it works.
    I have never said there is no other way of looking at things. However, it does depend on what things we are looking at. For example, questions like; “why is there something instead of nothing?”, “what is it all for?”, “is there an absolute morality?” can all be legitimitely addressed in terms of God. Now you and I may disagree on the default position on that, but I would not disagree that God is a valid hypothesis. On the other hand, if we are looking at how the mechanics of the world works then the scientific method has yet to be beaten in my opinion. I’m afraid that statements like…

    There simply isn’t the evidence in the fossil record or microbiological world that supports a chance-happening and self-sustaining reality

    are just false (not to mention that “chance” is not the essence of evolution in any case). In fact the evidence from multiple sources; Physics, Biology, Molecular Biology and Geology all converge to support the view that we are an evolved organism on a very old planet. This is not some kind of infidel conspiracy, it’s not that

    there are people that can’t/won’t be shown any proof of intelligent design

    It is that the evidence isn’t there to suggest divine intervention is necessary (please note this doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, just that it looks as though it hasn’t).
    This is getting way long, and I’m goofing off work to do this but…

    practically preaches immorality, because there can be no existence of, or even concept of evil in the evolutionary “model” as you call it. Everything is reduced to a clinical, lifeless, sterile pseudo-existence, when you negate the ‘human’ factor that only faith can inject.

    …is a statement I have to take issue with. First and foremost we are a moral animal. I believe that morality evolved for good survival reasons, but that doesn’t negate its value. Secondly we are not obliged to draw moral lessons from evolution. If we want to draw them from scripture (requires selective reading IMHO, but hey!) we can. We have free will (in a day to day practical sense anyway)and can choose to behave well towards our fellow humans and the planet we occupy. Nihilsm is not a consequence of atheism.

  21. cl

     says...

    Gideon,

    Nor do I believe in the concept of “helpless” infidel children, not when I see modern-day, AK-47-toting African kids going around necklacing adults and butchering one another like hogs.

    Are you racist? Or just unconcerned with promoting racist stereotypes? Not that I’ll treat you any different either way, just curious.
    Steve Bowen,

    Phew! where to start? and with a quick aside to say apologies to cl as we are way off topic here.

    Perhaps you’re too used to Ebon and his whining about thread derailment. No need to apologize whatsoever; I guess I should write in my comments policy that freethought has no boundaries, and that “thread drift” is not discouraged or whined about here. As in real life, amazing things often happen when we step off the beaten path. That being said, I’m gonna jump right into the conversation between Gid and yourself.

    Your brand of Christianity will be different from anothers, your literal interpretation will differ from anothers “literal” interpretation… This is because (I believe) they were written by fallible humans, not infallible gods and can’t be imported wholesale into a coherent world view. If they could there would only be one right way to be a Christian,

    I don’t understand why so many atheists whine about this. The evolution you believe today is a different interpretation than the evolution Huxley believed. The evolution Huxley believed was a different interpretation than the evolution Darwin believed. Apparently differences in interpretation are only damning to theism?
    Your argument fails for a simple reason (that you’ll probably call “nit-picking”): That not all Christians agree doesn’t make the Bible written by men. Further, it doesn’t mean the Bible can’t be imported wholesale into a coherent worldview. Those just aren’t cogent arguments against Christianity, I’m afraid.
    When Gideon mentioned his having to “determining which creed had the correct hermeneutics,” you said “That’s the point.” Yet, Gideon – and everybody who studies the Bible in that manner – is conducting textual criticism. It’s the same thing people have to do when we find a bunch of data that is seemingly at odds: we use our brains and facts to sort it out. It’s a process of reason. It’s the same thing lawyers have to do when given apparently contradictory testimonies.

    The reason atheists /infidels go back to the scriptures and the O.T in particular is precisely because they are so often at odds with what Christians of any stripe actually say.

    Amen, Steve. Now that’s true. It’s also the reason I go back to the Greek and Hebrew and (for the most part) stay far away from church and religion.

    First to take a cl like approach, semantics:

    Ha-ha. Funny thing is, look how good that paragraph was. There’s nothing wrong with using the subtleties of language to explain oneself more precisely.

    It is that the evidence isn’t there to suggest divine intervention is necessary

    Steve, unless you want to argue an infinite causal regress that somehow chose the current iteration to commit suicide in, or something from nothing, divine intervention is the only viable alternative. The evidence is there, my friend: something doesn’t come from nothing; causal infinite regresses seem to violate logic.

    I’m goofing off work to do this but…

    LOL! Who here is not guilty of that charge??

  22. Steve Bowen

     says...

    Steve, unless you want to argue an infinite causal regress that somehow chose the current iteration to commit suicide in, or something from nothing, divine intervention is the only viable alternative.

    Just a quick point here ‘cos I’m hosting an open mic tonight. I don’t dismiss a “first cause” intervention. That is ground I hope you and I can cover. There is no evidence that there has been a continuous intervention though.

  23. cl

     says...

    I don’t dismiss a “first cause” intervention. That is ground I hope you and I can cover.

    Well, that sounds productive at least, if nothing else. Have you read the two posts already written about this?

    There is no evidence that there has been a continuous intervention though.

    I agree, and isn’t that interesting? According to Genesis 2:1-2, there shouldn’t be any evidence of a continuous intervention, because “creation” was a discontinuous event.

  24. Gideon

     says...

    “Are you racist? Or just unconcerned with promoting racist stereotypes?
    That statement tells me you’re a younger person, cl. No one from my generation would think twice about my description of what Godless societies are like… so that they actually employ children as soldiers and ‘hitters’ without any qualm or hesitation.
    Actually, children, black or white, have fewer inhibitions than adults, are easily programmed and indoctrinated, and are always wanting and seeking the approval of their adult parents and mentors. It was no different in Bible times. The heathen children witnessed barbaric acts on a daily basis, and were as hardened as their infidel parents. As we see in modern times, an Israelite soldier could easily have a spear driven through him by a youngster sneaking up on him from behind, while he’s engaging the child’s father or elder brother. Children are no less dangerous from a tactical viewpoint than their parents.
    They also grow up from hardened infidel children into even more hardened infidel adults. This is the reason God gave orders for all to be destroyed. Even livestock were not spared, partly due to the fact that God wanted to instill a sense of trust in His followers, and to curb any covetous feelings His people might foster for the wealth and possessions of their infidel neighbors. Of course, the modern infidel only focuses on the ACT of God’s judgment on those heathen butchers, and not on the reasons that God had for judging them, or that God used His servants to execute that judgment.
    No, the fact I used Africa as an example of heathen disregard for life has nothing to do with the Negro race being the color they are. They just happen to be an especially emotional, potentially violent people. Probably very similar in nature with the heathen of OT times.

  25. Steve Bowen

     says...

    Gideon,
    You know? I was looking forward to debating with you, but actually… you and I have got as far as we can. Your morality is repulsive. Sorry, really sorry.

  26. Gideon

     says...

    I don’t know what I said to get you all riled up, Steve, but, that’s your choice.

  27. Steve Bowen

     says...

    Apparently differences in interpretation are only damning to theism?

    Because scripture is supposed to be divinely inspired. It is not good enough to say that the people interpreting it are fallible, God should be able to make himself clear.

    and isn’t that interesting? According to Genesis 2:1-2, there shouldn’t be any evidence of a continuous intervention, because “creation” was a discontinuous event.

    Granted, but this mis-understanding is my fault. I take as the default assumption that evolution happened and is happening. The verse from Genesis assumes a one off special creation and creationists assume this means all species at once and immutability. However I.Ders usually argue that God intervenes/interved in the “evolutionary” process which is what I was arguing lacked evidence. For me immutability and one off creation isn’t even a consideration.

  28. Gideon

     says...

    cl, it’s the same old story, only they’re approaching it from a different angle… the same tired old infidel demand that God perform magic acts for them upon demand.
    At least D was honest about that particular point, when she came out in the open and admitted as much. Well, it figures, doesn’t it? Pseudo-science teaches that only those things that are observable and are ‘performing’ (a very suitable term) at present, can be acceptable for ‘doctrine’. (Another very suitable term!)
    So, when the infidel looks at other religions for comparison, he naturally looks for similar attributes with his own.
    Unfortunately, for him, his own infidel religion has many different spokesmen and interpretations flying around, and there are not many cases where any two infidel preachers and prophets actually agree. And, if history and time were any authenticating factor in all of this, theirs would be the “special creation”, certainly the most recent religion to come down the chute.
    Yeah, I think Steve is right in his assumption… we have, indeed, come as far as we can with this. His logic is giving way to his dogmatism, as is usually the case with infidels.

  29. CL,
    In this entry, you’re criticizing Ebonmouse for lambasting notions of permanence with another word which happens to be a synonym of permanence – upon observing this discretion, you have noted that atheists are just like all other groups of people, in that they tend to denigrate members of out-groups and believe that the members of the in-group are superior. You’re basically criticizing many of the readers of Ebonmouse for a lack of intellectual consistency?
    Well, to my surprise, you apparently have not once criticized Gideon in this thread for his blatantly false assertion that there was a literal creation event six thousand years ago – instead you have chosen merely to focus on your points of agreement with your fellow believer and refuse to criticize many of the distortions and inaccuracies of someone on your own side of the religious issue – in the very same post in which you lament the tendency of atheists to be inconsistent in their criticism when it comes to members of their in-group, you have just done the very same thing by failing to strongly criticize all of the false statements of a member of your own in-group.
    While your condemnation of Gideon’s racist-leaning comments is praiseworthy, I still have noticed that you are overlooking many transgressions of a theistic commentator in a similar manner to the behavior you criticize in this post.

  30. cl

     says...

    You’re basically criticizing many of the readers of Ebonmouse for a lack of intellectual consistency?

    You got that right. I’m also criticizing Ebonmuse for demanding that believers should deal with criticism, while he refuses to deal with my criticisms.

    Well, to my surprise, you apparently have not once criticized Gideon in this thread for his blatantly false assertion that there was a literal creation event six thousand years ago,

    I tired of arguing with Gideon about evolution / creationism about 6 months ago. Add to that the fact that I really don’t know how the heck things went down. For all I know, there could have been a literal creation event 6-10,000 years ago. I don’t know, so I don’t claim.
    However, you’ve reminded that I need to write that post where I link to every instance where I’ve criticized Gideon, because I could see how someone could come here unaware of all the times I *have* strongly criticized him, and walk away with the same idea you just did.
    Honestly, at times I’m still not sure if he’s even authentic. “Team Scarlet A” – meaning SI, Exterminator, Chaplain, and PhillyChief – have sicked a troll / sockpuppet on me before. They used to sick their troll Trinity on believers to harangue them. One of Chaplain’s readers who was in on the joke clued me in to the whole sham, and that’s how I figured it out. Although I’ve heard Gideon say some rather cogent things, and I do believe he’s authentic, still, at times I wonder if Gideon is really just one of them trolling me, you know, lacing traps amidst cogency. So, that accounts for my hesitance sometimes, too. Surely, you can understand that, right?

    ..in the very same post in which you lament the tendency of atheists to be inconsistent in their criticism when it comes to members of their in-group, you have just done the very same thing by failing to strongly criticize all of the false statements of a member of your own in-group.

    Like I said, I’ve criticized him for what I perceive to be his misapprehensions of science, many times.

    While your condemnation of Gideon’s racist-leaning comments is praiseworthy, I still have noticed that you are overlooking many transgressions of a theistic commentator in a similar manner to the behavior you criticize in this post.

    The analogy’s not quite there, I’m afraid. You yourself noted that I did criticize Gideon here, and I note that I’ve done so in many other places. That’s about 100x more than Ebon’s lapdogs do, at least from where I’m sitting.
    Gideon,
    If in fact you are authentic, well.. I can understand how you might feel pissed or betrayed at what I just said, and I apologize if you are authentic, but think about some of the things you say to other people. Those are the things that make me doubt your authenticity. For example,

    ..I’ll rip your head off and SKULL-FUCK you, then do the same to your mother! May the Lord bless…

    Don’t get me wrong; I respect your freethinking, take-no-prisoners approach, but put yourself in my shoes: we’ve got Team Scarlet A, who has an undeniable history of sicking trolls on people, and you yourself used to write under a different name, until that gig got blown. It’s hard to trust anyone online.

  31. Purple

     says...

    Hey Gideon. I’m curious why you come to sites like these when you’re not interested in debate.
    I don’t mean this in a rude way, I’m merely curious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *