Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,08:01

Heddle:

Quote

But to clarify just a bit further, this is some of what the bible says about fallen man's natural attitude and relationship toward God:

• The intent of our heart is "only evil continuously". Gen. 6:5
• Our "righteous" deeds are filthy garments. Isa. 64.6
• Nobody is good. Luke 18:19
• We cannot see the Kingdom of God . John 3:3
• We are not righteous. Rom. 3:10
• We do not understand; we do not seek God. Rom. 3:11
• We have turned aside; we are useless. Rom. 3:12
• None of us does good. Rom. 3:12
• We do not fear God. Rom. 3:18
• We are hostile to God. Rom 8:7
• We are unable (not just unwilling) to submit to the law of God. Rom 8:7
• We cannot please God. Rom 8:8
• We were dead (not just gravely ill) in our sins. Eph 2:1
• We walked according to Satan. Eph 2:2
• We lived in the lusts of our flesh. Eph 2:3
• We were children of wrath. Eph 2:3

Such a picture is fairly summarized by saying all unsaved men hate God.

Quote

I believe you hate God for the reasons I gave.

Those are reasons?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,08:27

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatc....hp#more

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:01

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,08:30)

Reciprocating Bill,

Quote

This statement is completely at odds with the point of my first post, which you characterized as "spot on," so I'm a bit confused.

Yes, I misunderstood your first post, not taking it to mean, as your follow-up clarified, that I was using and entirely different and specialized meaning for “hate.” That was my fault; you wrote clearly enough.

That being the case - you really are asserting that ALL atheists harbor strong (but not extraordinary) feelings about God that could be characterized as hate. That is an empirical proposition that would be refuted by counter examples (just one would do). Indeed, you report that many atheists have told you "no, we don’t hate God. Why, we hardly think of him at all" - that they are devoid of the states you attribute to them. If those persons are accurately describing their psychological states, your assertion is refuted. You are left with 1) they are lying or 2) they are unaware of their own, ordinary, strongly held psychological states - intentional states one could argue must be concious (at least at times) to have meaning.

That leaves you with your specialized, idiosyncratic useage of "hate," which refers to a theological status that attends original sin regardless of the conscious psychological states of those who are unsaved, one of the assertions above (every atheist who deny such antipathy is either lying or is hating in an ordinary sense unawares) or an admission that your statement isn't accurate.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:31

Reciprocating Bill,

No, you are effectively insisting that hate has one meaning: a seething, jaw-clenched, emotional rage. But even in common usage we can hate things that we are not overly emotional about. When people find out one of my interests, they often tell me that they hate NASCAR. Do they think about it much, know much about it, or are deeply emotional about it? Probably no, no, and no. Many such examples exist. I love the Rolling Stones. I hate the Beatles. I am emotional about neither. So the common usage does not demand strong emotions—although it obviously doesn’t preclude it. As I wrote before, the synonym antipathy is probably the closest feeling.

As for whether people are lying, I am certainly not accusing anyone of that. I absolutely believe that you don’t believe you hate God.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:46

But Mr Poo, "hate" is an active word, not a passive one. One does not passively hate the beatles or nascar, and the examples you give are HYPERBOLE, not different meanings of the word hate. No dice Mr Poo.

By your usage (twisted again you'll note) one cannot lack a belief in a deity because at some level that you so geneously grant we atheists are unaware of we believe in god sufficiently to hate him.

Oh and we all know you are a paedophile David Heddle, god wrote it down, therefore it must be true by Heddlogic. You can't deny it, at some level whether consciously aware of it or not you want to have sex with children. I know it is the case because god told me, I wrote it down and I believe it. Prove me wrong.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:50

Quote

When I saw the quote being touted in a preliminary version of Dembski's book in May 2002, I immediately wrote him and informed him that the quote was very probably specious. He then replied with a three-word message: "Prove me wrong."

Source

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Patrick Caldon

Posts: 68
Joined: April 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:57

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,09:31)

Reciprocating Bill,

No, you are effectively insisting that hate has one meaning: a seething, jaw-clenched, emotional rage. But even in common usage we can hate things that we are not overly emotional about. When people find out one of my interests, they often tell me that they hate NASCAR. Do they think about it much, know much about it, or are deeply emotional about it? Probably no, no, and no. Many such examples exist. I love the Rolling Stones. I hate the Beatles. I am emotional about neither. So the common usage does not demand strong emotions—although it obviously doesn’t preclude it. As I wrote before, the synonym antipathy is probably the closest feeling.

hang on heddle,

In the Reformed dogma, every act committed by someone not given grace is *Totally Depraved*.

The word *totally* is not there by happenstance. It's a key point in the whole business.

Every action performed by someone without the Grace of God suffers the patina of sin, in that it does not have an intention that comes from God.

To sin is to rebel against God, it is to hate God.

Therefore every action by a non-believer carries this stain of hatred of God.

To wit:
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." Luke somewhere.

"Hate" here does not mean antipathy, it means "comparative rejection". Presumably God "hates" us when we sin in exactly the same way, c.f. Rom 9:13 where God "hates Esau", and hence the eternal hellfire and whathaveyou. I'd suggest that atheists "hate" God in precisely the same way.

But to repeat, this does not mean antipathy! It means rejection. And definitionally, atheists reject God. In Reformed-ese, sin = hate = rejection of God.

There's no way around it unless you want to dabble in whatever the monk was whose name started with P of whom Augustine was not fond.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:15

Hardly the same use or sentiment Wesley.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:38

Wesley,
I doesn’t matter a whole lot to me, but this forum has your name on it. Is it acceptable, even on the bathroom wall, to call people pedophiles? Just curious as to whether there are any guidelines here. I asked you once by email but you didn’t respond.

Patrick,
First of all the phrase “Total Depravity” is not in the bible, and most reformed thinkers will tell you it does not send an accurate message—that Original Sin is more nuanced than something that can be summed up in the simple phrase “Total Depravity.” As stated somewhere in this thread, the TULIP acronym is not a particularly good one.

And Total Depravity is not, as you wrote, applied to individual acts. It is a description of the extent man’s fallen state. And it is not “Utter Depravity” either. It does not argue that man is as sinful as he can possibly be.

Augustine put it this way: that unregenerated fallen man “cannot choose not to sin.” C. S. Lewis said something similar when he wrote that he never had a selfless thought. Thus “Total Depravity” or Original Sin speaks of an inability, not just an unwillingness, to please God.

Total Depravity sends a wrong message, that atheists are sitting around with vile thoughts, plotting how to commit heinous acts, when of course the truth is that most atheists are by human standards good and moral people who do wonderful acts of charity. Original Sin argues, however, that at the deepest level those deeds are ultimately self-centered and not meritorious (before God) although I certainly appreciate them.

You are correct that hate, as meant here, means total rejection—or rebellion—as opposed to a seething emotional response. I find the word “antipathy” describes the observational state of most atheists (all of whom are rejecting God, all of whom are in rebellion)—but I’ll not insist that it is the perfect word.

Louis,
People say they hate this or that all the time when they are not particularly emotional about the target. You can call that HYPERBOLE with all caps, but it doesn’t matter, usage is king. But, given your boorish mannerisms here, it wouldn’t surprise me if, at a cocktail party, if someone should casually mention that they hate, say, American football that you’d argue with them: no that is not the correct use of the word hate, thats just HYPERBOLE.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:46

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,10:38)

Wesley,
I doesn’t matter a whole lot to me, but this forum has your name on it. Is it acceptable, even on the bathroom wall, to call people pedophiles? Just curious as to whether there are any guidelines here. I asked you once by email but you didn’t respond.

Patrick,
First of all the phrase “Total Depravity” is not in the bible, and most reformed thinkers will tell you it does not send an accurate message—that Original Sin is more nuanced than something that can be summed up in the simple phrase “Total Depravity.” As stated somewhere in this thread, the TULIP acronym is not a particularly good one.

And Total Depravity is not, as you wrote, applied to individual acts. It is a description of the extent man’s fallen state. And it is not “Utter Depravity” either. It does not argue that man is as sinful as he can possibly be.

Augustine put it this way: that unregenerated fallen man “cannot choose not to sin.” C. S. Lewis said something similar when he wrote that he never had a selfless thought. Thus “Total Depravity” or Original Sin speaks of an inability, not just an unwillingness, to please God.

Total Depravity sends a wrong message, that atheists are sitting around with vile thoughts, plotting how to commit heinous acts, when of course the truth is that most atheists are by human standards good and moral people who do wonderful acts of charity. Original Sin argues, however, that at the deepest level those deeds are ultimately self-centered and not meritorious (before God) although I certainly appreciate them.

You are correct that hate, as meant here, means total rejection—or rebellion—as opposed to a seething emotional response. I find the word “antipathy” describes the observational state of most atheists (all of whom are rejecting God, all of whom are in rebellion)—but I’ll not insist that it is the perfect word.

Louis,
People say they hate this or that all the time when they are not particularly emotional about the target. You can call that HYPERBOLE with all caps, but it doesn’t matter, usage is king. But, given your boorish mannerisms here, it wouldn’t surprise me if, at a cocktail party, if someone should casually mention that they hate, say, American football that you’d argue with them: no that is not the correct use of the word hate, thats just HYPERBOLE.

Heddle - No. You are 100% wrong. LOUIS did not call you a paedophile - GOD called you a paedophile.

Louis was only His instrument on Earth chosen to pass on His divine message.

Don't be such a hater. And stop making Baby Zeus cry.

edited for spelling!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

mitschlag

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:47

Quote

Total Depravity sends a wrong message, that atheists are sitting around with vile thoughts, plotting how to commit heinous acts, when of course the truth is that most atheists are by human standards good and moral people who do wonderful acts of charity. Original Sin argues, however, that at the deepest level those deeds are ultimately self-centered and not meritorious (before God) although I certainly appreciate them.

So Heddle's god says,

"Knock yourselves out being good to each other, but kiss my ass, or you'll fry forever!"

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:59

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,10:31)

Reciprocating Bill,

No, you are effectively insisting that hate has one meaning: a seething, jaw-clenched, emotional rage. But even in common usage we can hate things that we are not overly emotional about. When people find out one of my interests, they often tell me that they hate NASCAR. Do they think about it much, know much about it, or are deeply emotional about it? Probably no, no, and no. Many such examples exist. I love the Rolling Stones. I hate the Beatles. I am emotional about neither. So the common usage does not demand strong emotions—although it obviously doesn’t preclude it. As I wrote before, the synonym antipathy is probably the closest feeling.

As for whether people are lying, I am certainly not accusing anyone of that. I absolutely believe that you don’t believe you hate God.

But, by implication, you do assert that, despite my denials, I hate God - perhaps in the same sense that you "hate" the Beatles, or I "hate" beets? But just don't know it?

Vis beets, I do colloquiolly state that I "hate" them, in the same way someone might say that they "hate" NASCAR. The only expression of this is that I pass them to the next person at dinner without sampling any. I don't otherwise sustain states of antipathy directed at purple herbaceous plants. I find it hard to believe that this is what you mean when you assert that a fallen state necessarily entails hatred of God. But, if that be the case, it doesn't seem worth discussing further, as the difference between someone who "hates" God in the sense that I "hate" beets, and one who simply gives the notion of God no thought at all, is trivial.

However, from where I sit the more apt analogy is an assertion that I "hate" unicorns, my reply that I can't hate something I don't believe exists, your statement that my disbelief in their existence reflects my hatred of them, and on and on.

(In expressing hatred of the Beatles you have absolutely trashed your credibility, dude.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,11:01

J-Dog

Quote

LOUIS did not call you a paedophile - GOD called you a paedophile.

Excellent rejoinder. Apparently Heddle is not yet aware of the ludicrousness of his argument.

You may not know that you hate my god, but my god says that you do, and so you must hate god..

You may not know that you are a paedophile, but my god says that you are, and so you must be one.

What's the difference? Even though Heddle's god is a deity of some renown, why is he better than the FSM, or Louis' ghost-writing god?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,11:09

And speaking of the terminally stupid: Ok then Mr Poo, let's play:

No Heddle, I wouldn't do that at a dinner/cocktail party. Sorry my use of "all caps" for a word you don't understand bothers you so much.

The use of a word meaning emontionally intense dislike about something which someone doesn't emotionally intensely dislike is hyperbole, not redefinition. Look it up. Yes of course, when definitions are made, usage is all, but the dictionary writers are slightly more sophistacted than you Heddle, they recognise parts of speech, modes of speech and differnt applications of words for different purposes other than redefinition.

Boorish? Moi? Hevane forfend. Tell you what Mr Poo, you start thinking, I'll start being nicer.

Next, I don't THINK you are a paedophile David, I BELEIVE it based on what my god told me (incidentally my god is manifested on this earth as a small plastic space filling model of the natural product Diazonamide A, and is sat on my desk. I like a nice direct link to my deity). Even more than that, my Lord and Saviour (for Diazonamide A was synthesised to save us from our sins) has just vouchsafed another revelation to me. Yay let it be written:

And it is on this day, the 1st day of the era of the Great Prophet Louis, that the second revelation came to the beloved Prophet.

The first revelation was that David Heddle (also known as Mr Poo) desires to have sexual intercourse with children, whether or not he knows or admits it, so it is written, so it shall be. Thus David Heddle is a paedophile.

The second revelation is that all peoples of all faiths and none who do not believe in me, Diazonamide A the great Saviour of Mankind who's divine glory was sacrificed by being synthesised using a biomimetic aryl-aryl cyclisation, are also paedophiles for is it not written that only a paedophile sayeth in his heart that Diazonamide A is not god? Thus all christians, muslims, jews, sikhs, hindus, buddhists and sundry other faiths are heretical paedophiles. Yay and atheists and agnostics too. For they all want to have sexual intercourse with children, whether or not they know or admit it. Thus speaketh I, Diazonamide A, you god and lord of all dominion et cetera, yadda yadda yadda, forever and ever. Let it be so.

Third Revelation. If it isn't obvious by now, my prophet is Louis, his medium of expression will be the After the Bar Closes message board. Do not seek to question my ways, my message or my prophet for each is mysterious and wondeful. Any who do question will be dealt with by mockery. Possibly quite harshly.

Let it be so.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,11:10

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,08:31)

Reciprocating Bill,

No, you are effectively insisting that hate has one meaning: a seething, jaw-clenched, emotional rage. But even in common usage we can hate things that we are not overly emotional about. When people find out one of my interests, they often tell me that they hate NASCAR. Do they think about it much, know much about it, or are deeply emotional about it? Probably no, no, and no. Many such examples exist. I love the Rolling Stones. I hate the Beatles. I am emotional about neither. So the common usage does not demand strong emotions—although it obviously doesn’t preclude it. As I wrote before, the synonym antipathy is probably the closest feeling.

As for whether people are lying, I am certainly not accusing anyone of that. I absolutely believe that you don’t believe you hate God.

Goddamnit this shit sets me off – I absolutely hate this stuff, I’ll tell you that, Heddle, dearie. My parents would go on vacation to visit relatives and end up arguing about the Bible at the kitchen table (they sure knew how to party) – everyone who is not a Christian is lost, everyone else is wrong, why is the world so scary and dark, etc. – and then I committed the cardinal sin of growing up, leaving home (I was supposed to move back home after college, I’m not kidding you), becoming a bohemian and they wigged out – OMG we must get her back, rescue her, she's screwing up her life, and there they were so unhappy, my family still so unhappy – crap I’m sick of it!

Is it possible that believers hate reality? Reality, their bodies, their needs, their passions? Because that's the biggest message I ever got from religion - people love God because they inexplicably hate themselves, and don't want to accept reality as it is. Well, I can understand that, totally! I’ve read enough over at Uncommon Descent to achieve some understanding, even a little sympathy, for what their objections to evolutionary theory are – that it’s not a nice story (and it’s not), that its chief sculptor is death and differential reproduction, that its chief architect is random mutation – hell, who wouldn’t rebel against such ideas? But I rebel against them by acknowledging them. Dawkins calls for that in the final sentence of The Selfish Gene, does he not?

Heddle, who (theist or atheist) doesn’t have at some level a hate-relationship with reality?

What do you want from people anyway? I never though it possible that you were as simplistically dualist as the poor folks over at UD. I've thought of you as a friend. What do you mean by “hate” anyway? I cannot truly hate anyone that I don’t in some respects love. (Okay I hate Osama bin Laden – because he’s a human being – by all accounts a gifted human being who could have turned out differently – a man who grew up in a culture that I love/hate, and who hates the things that I love in that culture and who loves the things that I hate about that culture.) There’s no such thing as absolute evil or absolute hatred, or love that never feels anger and yes, hatred. You’re a married man, right? Don’t you know this? Don’t you ever feel angry love or hate-love?

I don’t give enough of a shit about God to hate God. As far as I’m concerned if God were to exist S/He should worship human beings. In all their splendor and ugliness. You don’t know what’s inside me, Heddle, any more than my family does or cares to. Is that hatred, or is that indifference? No, they're not the same thing.

Are you really talking about yourself?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,11:28

Quote (Kristine @ Aug. 14 2007,11:10)

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,08:31)

Reciprocating Bill,

No, you are effectively insisting that hate has one meaning: a seething, jaw-clenched, emotional rage. But even in common usage we can hate things that we are not overly emotional about. When people find out one of my interests, they often tell me that they hate NASCAR. Do they think about it much, know much about it, or are deeply emotional about it? Probably no, no, and no. Many such examples exist. I love the Rolling Stones. I hate the Beatles. I am emotional about neither. So the common usage does not demand strong emotions—although it obviously doesn’t preclude it. As I wrote before, the synonym antipathy is probably the closest feeling.

As for whether people are lying, I am certainly not accusing anyone of that. I absolutely believe that you don’t believe you hate God.

Goddamnit this shit sets me off – I absolutely hate this stuff, I’ll tell you that, Heddle, dearie. My parents would go on vacation to visit relatives and end up arguing about the Bible at the kitchen table (they sure knew how to party) – everyone who is not a Christian is lost, everyone else is wrong, why is the world so scary and dark, etc. – and then I committed the cardinal sin of growing up, leaving home (I was supposed to move back home after college, I’m not kidding you), becoming a bohemian and they wigged out – OMG we must get her back, rescue her, she's screwing up her life, and there they were so unhappy, my family still so unhappy – crap I’m sick of it!

Is it possible that believers hate reality? Reality, their bodies, their needs, their passions? Because that's the biggest message I ever got from religion - people love God because they inexplicably hate themselves, and don't want to accept reality as it is. Well, I can understand that, totally! I’ve read enough over at Uncommon Descent to achieve some understanding, even a little sympathy, for what their objections to evolutionary theory are – that it’s not a nice story (and it’s not), that its chief sculptor is death and differential reproduction, that its chief architect is random mutation – hell, who wouldn’t rebel against such ideas? But I rebel against them by acknowledging them. Dawkins calls for that in the final sentence of The Selfish Gene, does he not?

Heddle, who (theist or atheist) doesn’t have at some level a hate-relationship with reality?

What do you want from people anyway? I never though it possible that you were as simplistically dualist as the poor folks over at UD. I've thought of you as a friend. What do you mean by “hate” anyway? I cannot truly hate anyone that I don’t in some respects love. (Okay I hate Osama bin Laden – because he’s a human being – by all accounts a gifted human being who could have turned out differently – a man who grew up in a culture that I love/hate, and who hates the things that I love in that culture and who loves the things that I hate about that culture.) There’s no such thing as absolute evil or absolute hatred, or love that never feels anger and yes, hatred. You’re a married man, right? Don’t you know this? Don’t you ever feel angry love or hate-love?

I don’t give enough of a shit about God to hate God. As far as I’m concerned if God were to exist S/He should worship human beings. In all their splendor and ugliness. You don’t know what’s inside me, Heddle, any more than my family does or cares to. Is that hatred, or is that indifference? No, they're not the same thing.

Are you really talking about yourself?

Kristine - You are not playing fair - good looking AND smart, and you are making one heck of a lot of sense!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,11:39

Kristine,

Quote

Because that's the biggest message I ever got from religion - people love God because they inexplicably hate themselves, and don't want to accept reality as it is.

How is such an assertion any different from my stating that atheists hate God? Everyone is upset, it would appear, because I dare attribute to them something to which I am not privy. But how does that differ from your arguing that people love God because they hate themselves? The only difference, as far as I see, is that it doesn’t bother me if you think I love God because I hate myself. Otherwise my response, "Pardon me, but I don't hate myself" is equivalent to the "Pardon me, but I don’t hate God" group response on this thread.

Quote

What do you want from people anyway? I never though it possible that you were as simplistically dualist as the poor folks over at UD. I've thought of you as a friend. What do you mean by “hate” anyway?

I don’t want anything. As for what hate means, I’ve stated it a number of times. As for how I argue, why would anyone expect me to argue a theological question without resorting to the bible—that’s the only way I know how to argue a theological question, and whether or not atheists hate God is, to me, a theological question. There are few things I’ll debate about. Physics, because I know a lot of physics and I like physics. ID because I know something about ID. Biology: no I know nothing about that. Politics: no, I am mostly ambivalent. Theology: yes I like debating that, and if I do I’ll use the bible as my text book. I know no other way.

And I’m not dualistic—because Christianity is not a dualistic religion—it is not a “good versus evil” religion. I’ve argued many times, for example, that atheists, such as Dawkins, cannot possibly harm Christianity—they are not the enemy—because, again, Christianity is not dualistic. Likewise I understand your point about love/hate relationships among people. But, according to scripture which is what I go by when it comes to theological questions--not human experience except perhaps to grasp for an analogy --fallen man is born in rebellion toward God--he hates God. That is an absolute condition, one that has nothing to do with the complexity of emotions humans have for one another.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,11:52

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,12:39)

But, according to scripture which is what I go by when it comes to theological questions--not human experience except perhaps to grasp for an analogy --fallen man is born in rebellion toward God--he hates God. That is an absolute condition, one that has nothing to do with the complexity of emotions humans have for one another.

Which, rather obviously, describes a state utterly different from that asserted in "I hate the Beatles" or "I hate NASCAR," [edit:] or even strong expressions of human antipathy, aversion, and hatred - the complexity of human emotions directed at one another. Your usage is specialized/idiosyncratic, and not at all continuous with the colloquial expressions you cite above.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,12:06

This just in:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20263135/?GT1=10252

DIVINE REVELATION

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,12:37

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,17:39)

Kristine,

Quote

Because that's the biggest message I ever got from religion - people love God because they inexplicably hate themselves, and don't want to accept reality as it is.

How is such an assertion any different from my stating that atheists hate God? Everyone is upset, it would appear, because I dare attribute to them something to which I am not privy. But how does that differ from your arguing that people love God because they hate themselves? The only difference, as far as I see, is that it doesn’t bother me if you think I love God because I hate myself. Otherwise my response, "Pardon me, but I don't hate myself" is equivalent to the "Pardon me, but I don’t hate God" group response on this thread.

Quote

What do you want from people anyway? I never though it possible that you were as simplistically dualist as the poor folks over at UD. I've thought of you as a friend. What do you mean by “hate” anyway?

I don’t want anything. As for what hate means, I’ve stated it a number of times. As for how I argue, why would anyone expect me to argue a theological question without resorting to the bible—that’s the only way I know how to argue a theological question, and whether or not atheists hate God is, to me, a theological question. There are few things I’ll debate about. Physics, because I know a lot of physics and I like physics. ID because I know something about ID. Biology: no I know nothing about that. Politics: no, I am mostly ambivalent. Theology: yes I like debating that, and if I do I’ll use the bible as my text book. I know no other way.

And I’m not dualistic—because Christianity is not a dualistic religion—it is not a “good versus evil” religion. I’ve argued many times, for example, that atheists, such as Dawkins, cannot possibly harm Christianity—they are not the enemy—because, again, Christianity is not dualistic. Likewise I understand your point about love/hate relationships among people. But, according to scripture which is what I go by when it comes to theological questions--not human experience except perhaps to grasp for an analogy --fallen man is born in rebellion toward God--he hates God. That is an absolute condition, one that has nothing to do with the complexity of emotions humans have for one another.

Mr Poo, Or Ravey Davey "I love the kids in naughty ways, me" Heddle if you prefer,

Again, since you seem to be hard of thought on this one:

"Atheists hate god" is not ok.

"I believe, based on my understanding of scripture and my faith, that atheists hate god" is ok.

I don't agree with either but one is an attempt at a statement of fact, one is a statment of your belief. One you are entitled to make as a matter of free expression (something I support everyone's right to do), the other is an unsupported assertion that has not basis in fact. You are entitled to your own beliefs, you are not entitled to your own facts. There is a difference.

Now you can try and psychoanalyse a specific atheist, but you'd be very foolish to tar all atheists with the same brush (just as I would be very foolish to tar all christians with the same brush). I'm certain there exist some people who lack a belief in a deity and are quite annoyed at religion etc and could be factually described as "hating god". That condition is not universal. Just like I (or anyone else) can psychoanalyse a specific religious person and surmise reasons for their faith and what have you.

One of the major issues you face when psychoanalysing an atheist and deciding they hate god is that you are telling them they hate something that they do not believe exists. That's a neat paradox. So for you to make the claim "atheists hate god" valid, you cannot piss about with definitions/quotes based on your magic book, that merely tells us what you believe not what you can demonstrate, you have to demonstrate one of two things:

a) god exists and the atheist knows it, and thus hates something they profess not to believe exists, but who's existence is a fact based on reproducible, reliable evidence (i.e. is a fact removed from mere opinion).

b) the atheist secretly believes in god and is denying that belief for some reason. Again this is based on data not obtainable by reference to faith. Only evidence works here.

Good luck on both of those.

Otherwise Mr Poo, your comment is nothing more than a statement of your belief, and not in anyway a factual claim. Your "summary" of "atheists hate god" is invalid on yet another count.

So what have we so far?

a) It is invalid linguistically, in all but the loosest terms.
b) It is invalid scripturally, in all but the most desperate of interpretations.
c) It is not a statement that follows either logically from the evidence or anecdotally from the comments of atheists.

Wow Heddle. A new low for you. You must be so proud!

Twat.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,12:51

Louis,

Quote

"Atheists hate god" is not ok.

"I believe, based on my understanding of scripture and my faith, that atheists hate god" is ok.

Sorry, unlike you, it is not my style to be pedantic. However, if that solves the problem,
by all means feel free to mentally insert the (meant-to-be-implied-and-the-apparently-mistakenenly-assumed
-obvious-but-I-guess-not-sorry-my-bad) qualifier: "In my opinion," before every sentence of mine that I write anywhere, at any time.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,13:13

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,12:51)

Louis,

Quote

"Atheists hate god" is not ok.

"I believe, based on my understanding of scripture and my faith, that atheists hate god" is ok.

Sorry, unlike you, it is not my style to be pedantic. However, if that solves the problem,
by all means feel free to mentally insert the (meant-to-be-implied-and-the-apparently-mistakenenly-assumed
-obvious-but-I-guess-not-sorry-my-bad) qualifier: "In my opinion," before every sentence of mine that I write anywhere, at any time.

No. You miss the point Heddle. Again. If we do what you suggest, then we are just like you, something that I would like to avoid at all costs.

You must enter the qualifier, not us. Each time. And saying "I just did" doesn't really cut it.

Try it. You can do it. And stop making Baby Zeus cry!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,14:40

To All The Usual Suspects:
I will be out for the next few days having a Fun Family Vacation, so please keep Heddle in line for me.

May Zeus Be With You.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

VMartin

Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory vs. Lysenko's The Science of Biology Today

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,15:18

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Aug. 11 2007,03:19)

One thing Gould has going for him is that he's written a humongous book that goes on at length about his views on evolutionary science. The content that Gould wrote there is at significant variance with Lysenko's Michurinism.

VMartin and Davison, on the other hand, have not distinguished their position from that taken by Lysenko, and have a history of supporting argument by quotation of dead authority rather than how scientists usually approach things. VMartin and Davison seem to believe that guilt by association works. (And apparently VMartin is stunned by the idea that someone else could not only return the favor, but do so with evidence of shared conceptual viewpoint between himself and the figure of historical villainy rather than flailing away, as VMartin does, at non-existent connections.) They don't have much room to talk concerning the obvious consilience of their position, so far as it is stated, with that of Comrade Lysenko. The obvious way to show that they don't share Lysenko's views is to repudiate the view, not to claim that others share their taste in conceptual company. Especially when that last bit of theirs, the supposed identity between Gould's views and those of Lysenko, is an obvious lie. Pretty desperate move, VMartin, but no amount of incompetence from VMartin is likely to surprise me.

I don't see a point why John Davison and I should distinguish our positions from those of Lysenko. Perhaps Gould did it in his Opus maximum (having bad conscience or what) as you have written. I don't have time to read another his book. Panda's thumb and boring Dinosaur in a haystack are enough I would say.

You can call also B.C.Goodwin "lysenkoist", because his opinions are sometimes strikingly similar to those of Lysenko. Does it mean that not only John Davisom but the whole school of biological structuralism are lysenkoists?

I am afraid Richard Dawkins also could be called "lysenkoist" using this way of thinking.

Lysenko 1958 (in my translation):

Quote

Various organs, different characteristics and physiological processess, all that endless diveristy of forms and functions of animals or plants are aimed towards direct or indirect collaboration for enlargement of number of individuals of given species . Even if in some cases it would lead to shortening of life-span of an individual or to his death.

If we change "number of individuals" in it for "number of genes" one might have impression that the sentence has been written by R.Dawkins.

Maybe Goodwin and Dawkins should distinguish their positions from those of Lysenko as well.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,16:42

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,21:37)

GCT,

Quote

I've already had this "atheists hate god" debate with Heddle. See, he will say that atheists deny god and hate him. When you point out that you can't hate something that you don't believe in

You remind me a bit of Kim Jung Il. Your descriptions of our "debates" on my site are always, when retold by you on this site, glorious victories for you. Nevermind. I'll just point out that the contention is "athiests don't believe in God, and they hate him," so carrying the argument nowhere beyond "we don't believe in God, therefore we can't hate him" is hardly worth the effort.

BTW, I didn't say C. S. Lewis was an atheist (though I believe, rather obviously, he was prior to converting) rather the Wiki article Kristine linked to said he was, and that he was angry with God.

I invite anyone to go back and read it for themselves.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dheddle/2652051098260940728/#628714

If you can't handle the truth, that you did change your position and got called out on it, then that's simply too bad.

Edit: BTW Heddle, I'm not upset, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of your position.

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,16:49

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 14 2007,10:39)

Kristine,

Quote

Because that's the biggest message I ever got from religion - people love God because they inexplicably hate themselves, and don't want to accept reality as it is.

How is such an assertion any different from my stating that atheists hate God? Everyone is upset, it would appear, because I dare attribute to them something to which I am not privy. But how does that differ from your arguing that people love God because they hate themselves? The only difference, as far as I see, is that it doesn’t bother me if you think I love God because I hate myself. Otherwise my response, "Pardon me, but I don't hate myself" is equivalent to the "Pardon me, but I don’t hate God" group response on this thread.

Quote

What do you want from people anyway? I never though it possible that you were as simplistically dualist as the poor folks over at UD. I've thought of you as a friend. What do you mean by “hate” anyway?

I don’t want anything. As for what hate means, I’ve stated it a number of times. As for how I argue, why would anyone expect me to argue a theological question without resorting to the bible—that’s the only way I know how to argue a theological question, and whether or not atheists hate God is, to me, a theological question. There are few things I’ll debate about. Physics, because I know a lot of physics and I like physics. ID because I know something about ID. Biology: no I know nothing about that. Politics: no, I am mostly ambivalent. Theology: yes I like debating that, and if I do I’ll use the bible as my text book. I know no other way.

And I’m not dualistic—because Christianity is not a dualistic religion—it is not a “good versus evil” religion. I’ve argued many times, for example, that atheists, such as Dawkins, cannot possibly harm Christianity—they are not the enemy—because, again, Christianity is not dualistic. Likewise I understand your point about love/hate relationships among people. But, according to scripture which is what I go by when it comes to theological questions--not human experience except perhaps to grasp for an analogy --fallen man is born in rebellion toward God--he hates God. That is an absolute condition, one that has nothing to do with the complexity of emotions humans have for one another.

The difference is, since you say you don't hate yourself, I believe you and I'm very, very relieved by that (because I do see it in other people - a lot of self-abnegation, horror of intense feelings, of their bodies, etc.).

The difference is, Ftk once told me on her thread that she didn't want to impose any kind of theocracy, and I decided to believe that and take her at her word.

The difference is, since you say you're not a dualist, and you experience yourself in a way I never can, I believe you. I don't know how Christianity is not a dualistic religion, but I think it can be in the hands of believers who are not dualists.

Yes, it's very dangerous to generalize - about anybody. But I think rebellion is a natural part of life and of love and a necessary process toward having true relationships with anyone - and when I say that I mean that this process does not have to have any "reconciliation" or salvation as its end. Seeing what happens to people who don't take risks because they want to be "good little God's children" all their lives (and I'm not talking about you) is really awful.

But one thing to consider - 2000 years ago Christianity did not exist and perhaps in the future it won't either - perhaps there will be a pluralism of other religions then (because I don't believe religion will ever completely go away) in place of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc., just as there were the Egyptian and Greek and Assyrian pantheons in the past. Religions change all the time. What, if anything, remains constant? The few atheists.

*edited some personal stuff*

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

mitschlag

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,16:56

Quote (GCT @ Aug. 14 2007,16:42)

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,21:37)

GCT,

Quote

I've already had this "atheists hate god" debate with Heddle. See, he will say that atheists deny god and hate him. When you point out that you can't hate something that you don't believe in

You remind me a bit of Kim Jung Il. Your descriptions of our "debates" on my site are always, when retold by you on this site, glorious victories for you. Nevermind. I'll just point out that the contention is "athiests don't believe in God, and they hate him," so carrying the argument nowhere beyond "we don't believe in God, therefore we can't hate him" is hardly worth the effort.

BTW, I didn't say C. S. Lewis was an atheist (though I believe, rather obviously, he was prior to converting) rather the Wiki article Kristine linked to said he was, and that he was angry with God.

I invite anyone to go back and read it for themselves.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dheddle/2652051098260940728/#628714

If you can't handle the truth, that you did change your position and got called out on it, then that's simply too bad.

Heddle is a hypocrite. Surprise.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

GCT

Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,17:08

Quote (mitschlag @ Aug. 14 2007,17:56)

Quote (GCT @ Aug. 14 2007,16:42)

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 13 2007,21:37)

GCT,

Quote

I've already had this "atheists hate god" debate with Heddle. See, he will say that atheists deny god and hate him. When you point out that you can't hate something that you don't believe in

You remind me a bit of Kim Jung Il. Your descriptions of our "debates" on my site are always, when retold by you on this site, glorious victories for you. Nevermind. I'll just point out that the contention is "athiests don't believe in God, and they hate him," so carrying the argument nowhere beyond "we don't believe in God, therefore we can't hate him" is hardly worth the effort.

BTW, I didn't say C. S. Lewis was an atheist (though I believe, rather obviously, he was prior to converting) rather the Wiki article Kristine linked to said he was, and that he was angry with God.

I invite anyone to go back and read it for themselves.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dheddle/2652051098260940728/#628714

If you can't handle the truth, that you did change your position and got called out on it, then that's simply too bad.

Heddle is a hypocrite. Surprise.

So, do I look like Kim Jung Il to you?

Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

Posted: Aug. 14 2007,17:16

Mitschlag,

I see you have read the comments from the link GCT has provided and agree with him that I have changed my position (am a hypocrite.) Do you care to back that up?—Where in those comments have I deviated from what I have been claiming here:
1) Atheists deny God
2) Atheists hate God
3) That hatred is expressed by the doctrine of Original sin

Where did I back down? Yes, this is a challenge

GCT,

Quote

So, do I look like Kim Jung Il to you?

No, you look like DaveScot.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

CJO

Unregistered