The Warfare Is Mental

An Illusory But Incredibly Well-Timed Forethought?

October 14, 2009

On the observation that changes in brain matter affect changes in thought, particularly reductionist atheists often claim that thought is a mere by-product of matter, but I find it interesting that proceeding by pure thought alone, I can willfully move my arm right now.

Doesn't it follow, then, that thought — i.e. consciousness — also causes matter to move? Or is the decision to move one's arm merely an illusory but incredibly well-timed forethought that somehow preceded the act? Provided we're not too shameless to deny accept the latter absurdity, doesn't the former observation suggest that perhaps thought is more than the mere by-product of matter?

MiracleQuest Continues: Another Response To jim

October 12, 2009

While doing some "fall cleaning" around here, I found today's post in the "drafts" folder.

Although the original exchange occurred over a month ago, and I'm unsure why I'm responding to a guy who banned me from his blog for an unspecified "breach of honesty" while he apparently has no problem calling me names like "mealy-mouthed prick" all over the internet, but dedication to the arguments must overlook the uglier sides of debate. Granted, I know what one or two of you might be thinking: "Ah cl, we hate it when you rehash these 'he said this, I said that' arguments. Why burden us with your own online social difficulties??" It's not that. Rather, I feel there are some cogent rebuttals here on my part, and I thought it would be a waste to just trash the post.

So, let's get to it. Comments welcomed.

The Argument From Computer Programming

October 7, 2009

P1 Conscious entities are currently the only entities we know of that can write a series of intelligent statements in a specific language;

P2 Human DNA contains a series of intelligent statements written in a specific language;

P3 A conscious entity is currently the only entity we know of that could have possibly created humans.

The Genetics Of Sin: A Dialog With Ritchie, Pt. II

October 5, 2009

The Bible claims that Adam and Eve's "original sin" in the Garden of Eden resulted in an extensive punishment that affects all of humanity. Last month, we had quite an interesting discussion revolving around a comment of Ritchie's, originally left for me at Daylight Atheism:

..why should the sin of Adam and Eve pass on to their children, and by extension, to us? Why can't each person be born with a blank slate? God, apparently did not arrange things this way. Instead, He Himself introduced the taint of sin and then blames us for possessing that flaw.

[At this point I responded by saying I rejected Ritchie's claim that God introduced sin into the human race, and Ritchie responded with,]

Who made the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden (knowing in advance that Adam and Eve would eat from it)? Who gave instructions to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit despite the fact that they had no concept of good or evil and were therefore unable to make moral decisions on their own? Who created the serpent (or Satan, whichever you prefer), knowing in advance the role he would play in man's downfall? Scripture says God, God, God. Whichever way you turn it, the entire episode in Eden is an almighty cock-up and it's all God's fault…

[Earlier in that thread, I had sad, "It's a reasonable argument that sin adversely effects the human apparatus; perhaps the original sin set something in motion genetically," to which Ritchie replied,]

You think sin gets passed on through your genes? Why? How could eating a piece of fruit affect Adam and Eve's DNA? Do other sins affect our DNA too? When we arrest people, should we take a blood sample and examine that for traces of 'guilt' or 'sin' to determine whether they are guilty? Should criminals be denied the right to have children, since their children will be born more genetically 'corrupted' by sin than the children of parents who have committed no crime?

Now, I thought for certain he was roasting me with his last two questions, but Ritchie assured me they were in fact sincere, so I promised him I would address them. We discussed some of these questions in rather excruciating detail in Pt. I, but I'd like to cover the rest of them, as well as add a thing or two to some of those we've already discussed.

What The Bible Actually Says About Salvation, or, The Logic Behind Jesus As The Only Way To God

October 2, 2009

As an aside, I think this could become a useful post series (What The Bible Actually Says About…), because I often find myself running into difficulty in arguments based on differing interpretations of the Bible. Two of TWIM's ~~five~~ seven post series are effectively stalled right now: Rebutting Atheist Universe, and eBates. The former is stalled mostly for lack of motivation, really. I tend to write spontaneously and follow arguments wherever they might interestingly lead, which is why I'll never whine a lick about what those who lack pertinent arguments often demonize as "thread derailment." Freethought has no boundaries, folks.

This spontaneity also means it's hard for me to force myself to respond to David Mills once a week when I'm not particularly feeling it — which I haven't been for a while. eBates and the whole "Power Commenter" ideas we've experimented with haven't gotten off the ground yet, mostly for lagging on my own part I suppose. The first person I invited to an eBate declined, and I just haven't asked anyone else yet. I've expressed interest in having one with Ebonmuse regarding his essay A Ghost In The Machine, but he declined to respond. But let's not digress too much here.

Aristotle’s Argument From Kinesis: An Introduction

September 28, 2009

One reason I haven't posted anything new in over two weeks is because we had a really good thread going off the last post. However, that's not the only reason.

Over the past two weeks I've been rethinking positions I'd previously been more or less 100% committed to. At least provisionally, although I am a believer, I still hold that no successful ontological argument for God's existence exists, meaning I do not believe there is an argument that logically requires a skeptic to accept God's existence as the only response. Nonetheless, I agree that at least philosophically, life requires an explanation — and I agree that depending on how they're delineated, First-Cause arguments can certainly be cogent — but I've just never felt they logically required the skeptic to accept God's existence. Today I'm not so sure.

A Dialog With Ritchie

September 9, 2009

Recently, I was over at DA criticizing Ebonmuse for jumping to conclusions in his essay, Original Virtue, when a commenter named Ritchie pitched me a few questions relating to my criticism. I explained to Ritchie that Ebonmuse moderates my persistent dissent, which means I am only allowed to comment on Daylight Atheism once per 27 hours, which means I have to choose my battles carefully. Since each of Ritchie's questions could easily support a post of their own, I suggested we move the conversation here, where comments are not moderated and speech is truly free. So, enough of my blathering, here's Ritchie in his own words:

To give readers some background, cl and I were both posting on daylightatheism.org, on a post about original sin and free will. Naturally, Adam and Eve were talked about. Ebonmuse, the site's author, asked why should the sin of Adam and Eve pass on to their children, and by extension, to us? Why can't each person be born with a blank slate? God, apparently did not arrange things this way. Instead, He Himself introduced the taint of sin and then blames us for possessing that flaw.

At this point cl responded by saying he believes there is nothing in scripture to support the idea that God introduced sin into the human race, and I responded with this:

Who made the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden (knowing in advance that Adam and Eve would eat from it)? Who gave instructions to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit despite the fact that they had no concept of good or evil and were therefore unable to make moral decisions on their own? Who created the serpent (or Satan, whichever you prefer), knowing in advance the role he would play in man's downfall? Scripture says God, God, God. Whichever way you turn it, the entire episode in Eden is an almightly cock-up and it's all God's fault, frankly (despite the fact that we humans CARRY the blame for it…).

At this point, cl is in conversation with many posters, responding to many questions per post, so he asked he to ask my questions here where he could give them the time needed to do them justice, and so I am, in the hope that he will.

On Atheists & Censorship

September 4, 2009

I was on an atheist website the other day when the following remark caught my eye:

Why is it that the only blogs which seem to moderate dissenting comments are Christian ones?
-Yunshui, on Superstition Free

That's one of the most inaccurate claims I've heard in the blogosphere, by far! Granted, there's no authoritative study on who censors speech more between atheists and believers, so of course people can only address this question from their own personal experience along with what they've heard from others, which makes our judgments subjective. Still, it's obviously beyond denial that Yunshui has seen a significant number of believers censor speech, else that comment wouldn't have been made.

Don't get me wrong: I agree that a significant number of believers practice censorship; I've seen it with my own eyes. This thread at DefCon is a perfect example, where the Desert Pastor deleted questions from PhillyChief, along with a supporting comment from SI, yet for some reason allowed Gideon's disparaging remark against PhillyChief to remain, even when DefCon's own "rules of engagement" state that "demeaning" or "insulting" comments will not be tolerated. Apparently, demeaning or insulting comments are tolerated, when made against atheists. So yes, I concur with those who point out that believers are prone censoring others, and I concur that it stinks.

My Response To Jack Waldvogel

August 31, 2009

Dear Mr. Waldvogel:

I read your recent letter to the Petoskey Public School District, and as both a native Michigander and a believer myself, I'm concerned. While I understood the point you made about Thanksgiving, may I suggest that you've possibly compared apples to oranges? You asked,

..if God can be inserted into Thanksgiving either directly or indirectly, why must we refer to Christmas Break as the Winter Holiday Break?

Granted, the Pilgrims at Plymouth certainly believed in and thanked God, but there is nothing in the concept of gratitude that necessarily entails or precludes religious beliefs, so the word Thanksgiving can effectively convey a secular purpose. Christmas, on the other hand, does not share such luxury of neutrality: the word itself contains a specific reference to a specific member of a specific religion – that not all Americans or Michiganders share.

You said,

False Arguments #31 & #32: My Response To A Ghost In The Machine, IV

August 20, 2009

In light of recent discussion at SI’s, now seems like the perfect time to continue addressing Ebonmuse’s oft-trumpeted essay A Ghost In The Machine (AGITM) along with similar claims from SI’s. Before continuing, it might be helpful to briefly summarize my responses thus far.
Read More →

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →