The whole truth
Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
And one more.
Hey gordo, let's take a look at some of your dishonest word games, with this statement of yours in mind:
"FYI, let’s get something straight off the bat: I am not a liar."
Fasten your seatbelt. Here we go:
"I never ever said that atheism as proposition was a worldview, but if you have projected that misreading, all else follows, down to the gratuitous (though relatively subtle) ad hominem."
What? You never ever said atheism (as proposition, whatever that means) was a worldview? Then you never said all this (and lots more), eh?:
"Athism in disguise: On the further absurdity that evolutionary materialism ands functional atheism do not constitute atheism, the word “tantamount” is as good a rebuttal as any.
Let’s see:
(a) atheists affirm they know there is no God and so any reference to God is based on delusion.
(b) as a major force in modern intellectual thought, references to God are ruled out a priori, by appeals to the incredibility of such, or by appeals to the rule of methodological naturalism.
Why is (b) imposed, in contexts where in fact theistic worldviews are plainly live options, and where comparative diffiulties across live options are the only way to get out of question-begging?
Elementary, my dear Watson: it is atheists who hold power in critical institutions and are imposing their beliefs by exerting censorship. The case of Sternberg and especially the chilling effect on others who had at any time expressed theistic leanings is a telling illustration in point."
"In short, science redefined in terms of MN becomes a game played by evolutionary materialist — or more bluntly atheist’s — rules, with no reference to seeking to discover and discern truth."
"Evolutionary Materialism as a [quasi-]religion: When the core of the concept, “religion,” is provisionally identified, evolutionary materialism turns out to be, functionally equivalent to a traditional religion, thougfh of course not a theistic one. This observation will be hotly contested, but it is plainly true and goes to the heart of the contradictory decisions and arguments that come from secularists, most recently as highlighted in the Dover decision. Thus, some serious soul-searching is in order for those who, through the fact that secularism is not a theistic religion, are in fact de facto establishing their quasi-religion as the state church of the united states, complete with the atheist’s veto on public policy, censorship on education and what can be viewed in the public square, and a question-begging redefinition of science as, in effect, the best evolutionary materialist explanation of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans."
"(And BTW, evolutionary materialistic systems are equally amoral, as they have only survival, not morality save as a convenient, culturally relative, social fiction."
"Thus we may see in outline — notice onlookers how the objectors protest ever so loudly when a detailed exposition is either developed or linked — why it is that Judaeo-Christian redemptive theism is a solid ground for morality. We also see why pagan and neopagan altenatives and skeptical evolutionary materialistic — which last, on the testimony of Plato in the Laws Bk X, go back to 400+ BC and men like Alcibiades — alternatives are inherently amoral, thus the pattern of moral disintegration of Rom 1"
"So, let us understand: we live in an ideologised, deeply polarised age dominated by ideologues influenced by avant garde evolutionary materialism and related ideas, which are inherently amoral and both personally and socially destructive."
"We must therefore pause to say that we have a Dominical warning to those who would put up such misleading that can deceive the innocent and naive: ’twere better that a millstone be put around their necks and that they would then fall into the deepest sea."
"This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination. And, given the painful and at points horrendous history of Social Darwinism, the eugenics movement and several other claimed scientific schools of thought over the past 100 years, this is inexcusable. In our day, the self-referentially incoherent and amoral worldview of evolutionary materialism often operates under the false colours of "Science," even seeking to redefine science to suit its agenda."
"I find it rich that in a context where atheists demand to make a definition of atheism that conveniently allows them to duck the challenge of warranting a worldview on comparative difficulties –across factual adequacy, coherence, and explanatory power on first principles of right reason and warranted, credible first truths — they wish to project a loaded definition on design thought.
But then, self-servingly loaded definitions now seem to be a standard rhetorical device of evolutionary materialists: for science, for atheism and for design theory."
"In short, the common observation of angry and disrespectful atheism so common online, is linked to some plausible psycho-social dynamics. (For those struggling with the problem of evil, deductive, inductive or existential/pastoral, I suggest this may help at a first response level.)"
"Darwinist objectors to design thought, your side has crossed the nuclear threshold here, to outright criminality, and your side has now underscored the nihilistic amoral bankruptcy of what all too many on your side have been doing and the implications of the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialistic factionalism, as Plato warned against in The Laws, Bk X, 2,350 years ago."
"Further to that, B’s gutter tactics illustrate the point that the evolutionary materialist worldview’s censorship of theistic thought and even of entertaining the possiblity that empirical evidence supports that intelleigent agency is at work in the origin of life and the cosmos, is unjustified, question-begging censorsip designed to protecyt a view that cannot stand the scrutiny of comparative difficulties on the actual merits."
"My own interst in this thread is that through Scalia’s review of Smith, we again see the reductio ad absurdum of evolutionary materialism and its handmaiden functional atheism."
"That is, he pointed out the inherent amorality of evolutionary materialism, which BTW is one way ti reduces itself to self-refuting absurdity."
"For many, the acceptance of evolutionary materialism is organically linked to their rejection of GOd."
"Second, evidentialism [the underlying point in the Sagan quote], is plainly logically incoherent, through self-referential inconsistency, and arguably so is the wider evolutionary materialist project. In short, these are credibly rejected by rational people as IRRATIONAL systems of thought."
"Then, he has compounded the crime by wishing to adopt a policy of indoctrination in evolutionary materialism, in the name of science education. Sorry, I am not a propagandist, nor will I entertain such deception."
"In short, science redefined in terms of MN becomes a game played by evolutionary materialist — or more bluntly atheist’s — rules, with no reference to seeking to discover and discern truth."
-------------------------------------------------------
And here's something from gordo you might find interesting.
Onlookers interested in a responsible approach to issues of textual authenticity, one readily available online, might take a look at the following links, offered for further follow up by the serious, though of course a good library or bookstore with serious authors on the subject, should not be overlooked:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp....i....it.html
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocde....ub.html
http://www.carm.org/questio....ten.htm
http://www.carm.org/questio....nce.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/qm....u....ub.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nuhbias....as.html
I think these sources provide food for serious thought for those who are not simply parading the fallacy of confident manner riding on that of the closed mind, and manifesting it self through question-begging selective hyperskepticism.
It’s time to climb out of the modernist cave!
Grace, open eyes
Gordon
------------------------------------------------------
And let's not forget these famous words by gordo:
"Deal with the issue on the merits, rather than attacking people as if they were threats."
"It is high time we move the discussion on beyond malicious caricatures.."
ETA: fixed a typo
ETA more bullshit from gordo:
"So, the only worldviews worth investigating seriously are those that do ground OUGHT in a foundational IS."
"My immediate point is, that — given that we face a world in which ought is credibly real and binding — the best candidate for such a worldview foundational IS sufficient to ground OUGHT is the inherently good, wise, fair Creator God, Lord and Just Judge of all."
"On Judaeo-Christian monotheism [theism for short], the morally virtuous Creator-God is the IS who grounds OUGHT in his character. that is the cosmos and especially that aspect where mind enters the picture, has morality built-in, AND morality is reasonable not an arbitrary, capricious imposition. So, it is improper to try to extend the Euthryphro dilemma to such theism."
"When we turn to methodological naturalism, it is in fact the thin edge of a wedge, used by those with an agenda to redefine science, especially origins science, as in effect applied atheism."
"the evolutionary materialist worldview is, sadly, evidently and demonstrably:
1] Blatantly factually inadequate to account for the origin of the cosmos, life, mind and morals relative to explanations that infer to a Cosmogenetic Designer.
2] Absurdly reduces mind to delusion and morals to contests of power.
3] Resorts to questrion-begging ad hoc assertions and prejudiced rules of reasoning, such as the one cited above: functional atheism, and its cognate in scientific circles, methodological naturalism.
In short, it is high time that the dominant status of evolutionary materialism in the hearts and minds of many of the educated across western culture was seriously re-examined."
"... only a worldview that has a grounding IS that is a proper foundation for OUGHT is a reasonable faith."
"...only views that properly ground morality are credible"
"Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. "
"I have pointed out, on evidence:
1: just how evolutionary materialist atheism is inescapably self-contradictory and necessarily false.
2: just how it is inescapably amoral and so cannot ground OUGHT in a foundational IS, so it undermines rights and justice.
3: how a step by step analysis of credible worldview options leads to the conclusion that generic ethical theism is the soundest worldview option.
4: how the specific, Judaeo-Christian worldview and tradition is grounded in the historic evidence that undergirds the gospel as truth that brings us hope for redemption and transformation under God.
5: just how destructive and willfully, slanderously unfair is the attempt to smear Bible-believing, gospel-teaching Christian disciples with the false accusation that we are in effect the same as Al Qaeda's terrorists, would-be theocratic tyrants and general menaces to liberty, progress and democracy.
Unfortunately, this commenter, TWT (the same who threatened my family mafioso-style some months ago), amply underscores just how hateful, recklessly irresponsible, angry, and potentially dangerous -- please, listen to the podcast, here -- are all too many of today's new atheists."
The "podcast" gordo is referring to is one with Dawkins, I think. And I'm still waiting for gordo to show evidence of his FALSE accusation that I threatened his family "mafioso-style" or in any other way. It NEVER happened. He's a LIAR.
More of gordo:
"Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [[= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [[the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action.
Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [[We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'.
For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.
Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit.
Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from [[a material] 'is'. [[Emphases and paragraphing added.]"
"First, early twentieth century Christian thinkers had to reckon with the impact of evolutionary materialism (the atheistic philosophy often adopted by those who accept Darwin’s picture of the origin of life on earth)."
" The underlying rejection of the biblical view that God acts supernaturally in creation, redemption, healing, prophecy and judgement, which owes more to debatable atheistic philosophies and associated skeptical assumptions than to established facts."
"It seems to me that if the Cobb Board wishes to help students see that, they are aiding rather than undermining true science as opposed to evolutionary materialistic scientism, a philosophical wolf that is often fond of hiding under the sheepskin of science."
"In fact, thought-through morality is based on worldviews, and all worldviews have theological components [even atheists believe that there is no God, and draw out implications.] You cannot but have some worldview foundation for thinking, and that includes ethics. "
As can be seen, gordo thoroughly equates atheism to evolutionary materialism, methodological naturalism, atheistic naturalism, scientism, and anything else he opposes, and he obviously sees them all as worldviews, and ultimately the SAME worldview. The worldview that opposes HIS judeo/christian, theistic worldview. And if theism is a worldview to him, so is atheism.
Remember, gordo said:
"I never ever said that atheism as proposition was a worldview, but if you have projected that misreading, all else follows, down to the gratuitous (though relatively subtle) ad hominem."
LIAR. Amoral, immoral, willful, blatant, falsely accusatory, scum sucking, shit faced, cowardly fucking LIAR. Yeah, gordo, that's YOU.
Edited by The whole truth on July 02 2012,07:45
--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
|
