rainbow walking

Hi Jobar,
I am a roving atheist. I believe in applying the proper pressure commensurate to the argumentation of my opponent. If he argues from presupposition I am a strong atheist. If he presents evidentiary claims agnosticism is the most economical weapon. If he is philosophically inclined or biblically attenuated I apply a healthy dose of weak atheism to dismantle his motives.

To Koy, I just want to say, your argumentation is superb. I tip my hat to you sir. I would have added to your rebuttals but what can be added to sheer perfection without insulting the perfector?

My, my, the lions are hungry today. Is there not another christian to devour hereabouts?

SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi,

Thanks for the detailed reply…

I am simply saying that, for the Christian, because God created everything that exists, He knows everything and is the source of all knowledge. He is the connection between the world of brute factuality and our knowledge. As I stated in my previous arguments, the Christian has a different definition of knowledge from the agnostic, which is a particular area where you can see that the Christian should seek to know all facts in their relation to God.

I am referring to whether it is possible to know anything apart from its relation to God, not to the question of God’s existence. In order to seek any knowledge, you first must decide if you are going to seek to know facts by or apart from their relation to God.


After considering my first three points regarding the differences in what knowledge is for the Christian and for the agnostic, does this statement stand? It is true that we can both agree to that statement, but that is because we each give it a different meaning.

Does loaded language help you to be “a drop of reason in a pool of confusion?”

I am not.

It makes no sense outside of the Christian worldview, but I think that within the Christian worldview it makes sense. God created the world in a way that everyone who lives in it knows Him on some level. Everyone lives in this world. Everyone knows God on some level. Upon this level we have common ground with everyone.

Well, the purpose of this was not to show that Christianity is true and all other religions are false, but merely that neutrality between worldviews is impossible.

Do you exist? Does anyone else exist? Do your senses reflect reality? Where did your mind come from? Where will you go when you die?

If you wish to answer these sorts of questions, even on the subconscious level, you must have some form of a worldview. Inaction itself is an action, since it forms a worldview by negating all other alternatives.

What does that have to do with my statement?

Are you not also sprouting propaganda; thoughts programmed into you?

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Koyaanisqatsi

Rainbow, I am typeless!

That was--without question--one of the most intelligent, level, coherent, sincere, insightful and engaging posts I've ever read here.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I still find it difficult to process that you've awakened, but after that, who cares?

Truly a pleasure to read.

Forgive me, but that's yet another meaningless platitude.

What do you mean when you say "he's the source of all knowledge?" It sounds like it's self-evident--he's the "source"--but actually deconstruct it and you'll find that it has no meaning.

I ask you this because these kinds of meaningless platitudes are what cults use to inculcate their followers, so if you ever actually took the time to listen to what you're regurgitating, you should see rather quickly that you're not saying anything.

Again, this doesn't explain anything; it is nothing more than another platitude, albeit a bit more esoteric than the previous ones.

So far, all you've done is made proclamations, not deconstruction.

The "connection" of our knowledge? "World of brute factuality?"

It sounds much more like you're simply personifying a natural process that is just not understood; like calling viruses "humors" or "demons" in the dark ages.

Yet, the Christian is also told that he cannot know all facts in their relation to God, nor can he even know God, just seek to know God and hope that God reveals himself, which, even then, does not mean that you've actually seen God, since no man has seen his face, etc., etc., etc.

It is absolutely meaningless to say such things, especially when God is ineffable, so it is literally impossible for you to actually "know all facts in their relation to God."

Impossible. Do you get where I'm going here? It's not that it's "hard" or "difficult" or a "struggle" or " a matter of faith," it is not possible to put that platitude into action in any way, shape or form.

So, why do you think you've been conditioned to regurgitate an impossibility; to believe in an impossibility that makes no logical sense?

Why is logic and reason so profoundly denigrated by your cult? What would be the purpose, especially sine logic and reason are innate qualities of your existence that would have to be "god given?"

There can only be one reason to supplant your natural cognitive processes with these meaningless platitudes; make the cult ultimate in your life; filter everything through cult indoctrination.

That's what it actually means when you say things like "know all facts in their relation to God."

Here, I'll prove it. A diamond is the hardest known naturally occuring substance found on this Earth. That is a fact.

What does it mean to "know" that a diamond is the hardest known naturally occuring substance found on this Earth in relation to God?

Answer: God made it.

Plug in every single fact into that same equation and the answer will always be nothing more than "God made it."

How is that at all helpful to you in any practical way? Ok, great, God made it. What now?

Do you see what I'm getting at? It is an utterly meaningless proclamation that only serves the cult agenda that you always think "cult, cult, cult, cult, god, god, god, god, cult, cult, cult, cult" etc.

It serves no other purpose.

And I was clarifying your misconceptions about both atheism and agnosticism.

Why? Whether or not a god exists has no bearing on "facts" in evidence and as we've just seen, the only endgame process that results from knowing facts by their relation to God is that God did it.

That's all it means. God did it.

Fact: the Earth orbits the sun.
Fact in relation to God: God did it.

How does that impact anything at all regarding either the fact or acquiring of knowledge, other than as a pointless cult programming addendum; like stamping "copyright God" on everything?

So, let's grant for the sake of argument that your god exists. How does that effect the fact that the Earth orbits the sun, forgetting, of course, the fact that your cult used to murder people for saying such a thing?

Yes, since you did not explain what those differences actually entailed; you simply regurgitated meaningless platitudes you've heard hundreds of thousands of times throughout your conditioning as I suspected.

I know this, by the way, because I was once a cult member and heard the exact same meaningless platitudes over and over and over again and when I asked these questions got the same non-substantive responses as you are providing, so don't bother objecting or saying "that's not the case," because I've been there and heard all of this.

It may be a shock to you (I'm not sure) but nothing you have said is a "new" thought and everything you have said is identical in both tone and language to what I was told over twenty five years ago by my own church and church members and parents and any other member of the christian cult I ever spoke with.

In fact, in my 36 years on this planet, I have heard exactly what you've said by every single christian I have ever met.

Now, you tell me. If you hear the phrase, "The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo is love; love is felt only through The Great And Powerful Too RAH Loo," from every single TooRAHlooian you've ever met and they all say it exactly the same way in exactly the same manner and apply it in the exact same way to any argument you have in regard to it, what is your conclusion?

This is why I asked you to deconstruct; explain the meaning of these platitudes, not just offer more platitudes that simply proclaim the same thing with a different turn of phrase.

Actually, only you "give it a different meaning." This isn't an "either/or" scenario, you know. For that to be the case, you would have to prove your position beyond a reasonable doubt so that there would be a position for you to stand behind in any relevant, comparative, "either/or" sense.

The Christian simply pretends it's all true. As you should know, pretending something is true does not put you into any legitimate position at all to claim an "either/or" status.

It is entirely irrelevant what you believe; what you pretend is real. Until you can actually support your claim there is no "either/or."

What "loaded" language? Everything I typed aptly describes the truth about the mythology you follow. You just pretend it isn't true.

Don't shoot the messenger just because I call a spade a spade.

Then what does your cult believe in?

Isn't that convenient?

No, it makes no sense. Period. Remember, I was in the "christian worldview" as you call it.

Then deconstruct it; explain it in detail, not more platitudes.

More meaningless platitudes. You're right in one regard; only another cult member would except these empty words--as I did once--since empty words are what it's all about.

Operant conditioning is so simple; you ring the bell and the glands salivate. That's all it is.

I often get criticized for singing this same song, but then it always comes back to it. Simply indoctrination; the inculcation of these kinds of phrases so many times that your brain just fries at some point and you supplant repetition for meaning.

That wasn't what I was asking you.

Yes, as is evident from the words you are reading.

Congratulations. You have just triggered response number #289; the solipsism evasion. When your cult indoctrination is sufficiently threatened, counter by saying things like, "How does anyone know if they really exist?"

It is meaningless linguistic shrapnel that will give you the illusion of stalemate so that you do not have to actually think about your opponent's utterly reasonable and obvious explanations for why you continue to support the unsupportable.

Yes, they do as is evident from the other posters on this board and the poeple you see every single day.

If you'd like to deny it and pretend that you're the solipsist, then this discussion is immediately over.

As I've said many, many, many times here, you are certainly free to hide behind the stupidity of the solipsist position, but if you decide to do so, you, ipso facto and with no pun intended, do it alone.

Yes, they do, or else there would be no such thing as "reality" now would there?

I don't know nor--and this is the most important point--do I need to know. It is entirely irrelevant "where" my mind came from if indeed it "came from" anything apart from me.

Let me repeat that: entirely irrelevant.

Where will I go next Tuesday? I don't know. Does that mean Tuesday won't exist for me? Or that I have to have faith that Tuesday will exist in order to live or gain knowledge or anything at all? No.

Beside the fact that the answer to that question is not known to either the atheist or the christian (since you have no way of knowing whether or not you will go to heaven or hell or some other place that God hasn't revealed yet) has no relevant importance whatsoever to your existence or the gathering of knowledge.

None.

You are abusing that term. I view the world as my senses perceive it just as you do.

The only difference is, you pretend a mystical fairy god king magically blinked it all into existence as a necessary condition.

Why?

Mindless drivel that means nothing. You can't have a "worldview" of any relevance until you can provide compelling evidence that supports your "worldview," i.e., christianity.

You have no such evidence, therefore, your claims in regard to the legitimacy of your "worldview" are unsupportable and therefore trivial at best.

Here's the analogy that should illustrate my point. You and I are both looking at a Giraffe. I say, "Wow, that's amazing!"

You say, "Not just amazing, but magically created out of nothing by an ancient, mystical fairy god king from Middle Eastern warrior-deity mythology that I claim is true."

Where is the "either/or" in that scenario and who has the burden of proof? Me, who simply commented on the incomprehensible or you who claims to know the "source" that makes it comprehensible?

You do, of course, because you are the one claiming special knowledge of something that is not obvious, not apparent, not capable of knowing through my senses and, ironically, still ultimately incomprehensible, since all you really did was just replace one mystery with a different mystery.

It explains the root cause of the platitude you were regurgitating; that notion that we are the standard of truth and we are not omnisicient and therefore cannot be the standard of truth and we are fallible and arrogatn and making ouselves out to be god and all that nonsense.

Talk about "loaded language."

I just thought I'd save you the time and cut to the chase.

The question of "what is true" is many and varried and has so many different contexts, it would almost be impossible to list them all, so to constantly confuse "Truth" with "what is true" is just an exercise in frutility, ultimately, since there are subjective truths and objective truths (i.e., things that are true "to the universe," like gravity, and things that are true "to the individual," like a favorite color).

The "standard of truth," therefore, has no meaning in and of itself since the word "truth" has so many different contextual meanings.

For anybody to say, "The Standard of Truth Is 'X'" like it's emblazoned on Superman's cape or something is just sophomoric at best, infantile at worst.

Ultimately, all humans are indeed a standard of truth since we are the ones who have written language and can thus intercommunicate such concepts (so far as we know, of course), so it will always be necessarily subjective with nothing more than a pretense of objectivity.

We can all agree, for example, that gravity is independent of human consciousness, yet, as you demonstrated with the solipsist pointlessness, ultimately it cannot be absolutely established since none of us exist "outside" ourselves.

This is precislely why a god mythology was concocted to begin with, but that doesn't mean that it's "true;" it just means we got frsutrated doing exactly what you're doing by saying things like, "How can you really know you exist" and the like.

As always, the irony is dripping, since, in your attempt to establish sufficient cause you have actually demonstrated precisely why imaginary creatures like the Christ had to be concocted in order for any kind of lasting control mechanisms to have any "weight" behind them.

"Do as I say because I wield absolute power; the one thing you as an individual inside your own mind can never wield, but I, with my external source of all knowledge, can!"

Get it? The arguments you made were used by malevolent men in order to control you; to force you to do such things as sacrifice your prime livestock and best grain; to force you to give up your possessions and allegiance when called upon; to force you to adhere to an idealogy--a slave mentality--hidden so deeply within the overall platitudes that you won't even recognize what you're doing until it's too late.

It's not rocket science. The only thing that has most of us perplexed is why it is that we all saw it and you guys still can't, yet claim that it is we who are blind.

Doesn't that sound the least bit suspicious to you? That we have legitimate questions and you have "apologists?"

<ol type="1">[*] No, I'm not.[*] You've just granted you spout propaganda, thereby granting my argument[*] Even if I were, how is this a response to my point?[/list=a]

Are you saying that since we are both spouting propaganda that, what? We are somehow equal? That our propaganda is the same so the fact that we both spout propaganda rules each other out?

My "propaganda:" fictional creatures don't exist.
Your propaganda: fictional creature do exist.

I'll stick with my "propaganda" if you don't mind. Until of course you can provide any possible reason for me to accept that imaginary characters from ancient works of cult fiction are actually literal beings from ancient works of historical documents.

I'd avoid talking burning bushes; snakes; donkeys; the dead rising; an all loving being who commits rituallized genocide at least three times in the span of six thousand years in order to punish his own creation and start fresh, only to then, apparently, keep designing us with the kinds of flaws that piss him off so much that his only solution to the problem is mass murder; and a Son who is also his own Father and vice versa, who comes not to bring peace, but a sword.

Ok? Because that kind of propaganda is just too ludicrous to deal with in any serious manner.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>