openlyatheist

I have plagiarized someone else’s essay because I would like to get other people’s opinions on it. I did not write this essay nor do I make any claims as to the truth or falsehood of its contents.

What do you think of this essay?
Does it prove the invincibility of Scripture?
http://www.christianforums.com/t2072...ologetics.html

<edit>

judge

I did not have agood look at the essay, just a skim. But as one who was fooled by this approach at one time I do have some thoughts.

One obvious problem is that at various times in the bible we are encouraged to look at the evidence to help us believe.

For example at one point some of the disciples doubt that Jesus had risen. They are then told to go and look for themselves.

They aren't encouraged to look to the HB for proof but to examine the evidence themselves.

Peter Kirby

I submit the following as a consistent worldview. Let me know if you find something as clear and systematic in the Bible.

The Little Guidebook
A. The Little Guidebook is inerrant.
B. A belief is rational if and only if it is hit upon by a set of heuristics that is adapted to the environment.
C. A set of heuristics is adapted to the environment if and only if it consists of cues and generalizations that produce belief where behavior based on those beliefs is positively correlated with success in that environment.
D. Positive correlation means either that there is always success or that, with many applications, there is a great number of successes and few non-successes.
E. Success in the environment means the satisfaction of the actual goals of the believer.
F. Adopt the belief that seems most rational, most strongly resulting from application of the heuristics for belief that when followed have high correlation with success, as outlined in The Little Guidebook.
G. Give more thought to beliefs that rationally seem more important to success.
H. Try to pick goals that neither conflict with each other too much, nor conflict too much with your nature as a social animal, a human being.
I. To figure out your nature as a human being, study human beings and make rational generalizations about what they need and of what they are capable.
J. Your basic goal as a human being is the physical health and mental happiness of yourself and those you care about.
K. Show as much care about other people as does not jeopardize your own happiness or endanger others; e.g., show care about a "jerk" to the extent that having such care does not endanger the happiness of yourself or others.
L. Don't be a jerk.
M. This completes The Little Guidebook, which is released into the public domain.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

But what is a "jerk"?

Peter Kirby

I was gonna put in a definition, but I'd kind of rather it be left to interpretation. I was also going to leave it out, but it has a nice kick to it. There's a method to my madness.

If you must... in this exegete's opinion... a jerk is someone who is endangering the happiness of others in a way that goes against K, i.e. to show as much care for the happiness of yourself and others as possible. Either the jerk is hurting himself while hurting others, or the jerk is hurting others for a reason other than preventing the endangerment of himself and others, i.e., for a reason other than preventing jerks from doing too much harm.

It gets tricky and almost recursive, but the termination of the analytic process usually comes from the lower consciousness and emotion. "Am I being a jerk? Okay, I guess I should cut it out." Conscience is a subprocess of the mind, just as face recognition and voice recognition are.

As someone once said, it is always easier to sound profound when giving smart-alecky quips than when explicating ones fundamental beliefs. Hence, just, "don't be a jerk."

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Chris Weimer

I thought you were pretending to be profound, so I had to step up the pretensions a bit.

Lazarus Nichodemus

You lack much definition in your guidebook. What's true harm? What's happiness of others? How does the jerk define he is hurting himself? Who has the right to decide the Jerk is hurting himself or others?

The problem with the "Live and Let Live" world view is nobody has the right to define at what point someone steps in to prevent the "Jerk" from hurting others?

Let me know how you clean up the "fuzzy points"

Sincerely

L.N.

Peter Kirby

This is quickly heading off to the Philosophy forum, I'm sure...

Respective of the O.P., one of the big points I was trying to make is that the Bible is nowhere clear and systematic, which is not saying much given the comparand; interpretation of the Bible in such areas is fuzz all the way down. Even my half-assed 5-minute effort beats the Bible there.

I pretty much hurled ten elephants in that post (an expression meaning that a huge topic is sloganified and settled in a sentence), so if you'd like to talk about it, please show me the goodwill of recognizing that the post was deliberately curt in its approach. Criticism that compares the post against other ideas is, of course, appreciated.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

It is a big load of steaming hypocrisy.

They demand proof from their opponents, although they claim that they themselves do not have to prove anything.

They demand that they opponents prove them wrong, and concede that their opponents *do* use logic and science to prove them wrong, but presuppers then claim that because they have been proved wrong, they must be right, because a proof by an atheist defies the atheist world view.

Presuppers are the most stinking hypocrites on the planet.

Toto

Philosophy Forum sounds like a good place for this.