
This one might take a while. Wait for it.


"although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it."
i'm just gonna be as real as possibly here - your third installment of the series sucks ass jim. you really disappointed me in your continued assumptions and false associations. i gave you a bit of clarification (which, by the way has been on my site for months if you would but seek), and you use it to run ten miles and associate me with everything from calvinism to arminianism to total depravity doctrine.
although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it.
would it be good faith if i construed your atheism as entailing "baby eating" or "lacking moral values?" hell no it wouldn't. you got some real nerve sometimes man.
Since this isn't an official response, but the last in a series of email bitching, I will include my response to cl here, as follows-
cl:
The more you write things like this, the more I'm persuaded that all you really seek is contention. I've addressed your argument from my POV, with absolutely no ad hominem inferences whatsoever. Obviously I knew you'd disagree, since mine is a critique of your position. That's why I've offered you the last word rebuttal, to...uh...you know...REBUT! Clarify. Add. Subtract. Anything you like, free and clear. I didn't say anything analogous to 'baby eating' or 'lacking moral values'.
Dirt? Why, because I brought up the two ends of the spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism, regarding pre-destination? You'll 'never be able to recover' because I'm a 'good writer'??? No comments? YOU can comment, cl. Unchallenged. That's the whole point of this format, for crissakes!
Here's the real problem, as I see it. You just don't have the stuff, cl. Oh, you bluster and point fingers about how nobody's being cogent 'cept for poor little ol' you, but in the end, all you've really got is a knack for flame wars. I figured this format would bug you in the end, because it takes you out of your comfort zone, where you can mitigate, seek allies, and rile everybody up to your heart's content. On the other hand, I had hopes that you might find value in rising above all that. But you can't do it, can you? This is what you like, arguing towards no purpose. Even during our simple correspondence to set this thing up with you, you've tried to get me going on more than one occasion, but I just wouldn't bite. And now this response. You're nothing but a big baby, cl.
Put up or shut up, ya wuss.
P.S. Since you've decided to not participate here, I guess I'll use this interchange in lieu of an actual response by you. Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.
"I said, "Although I started with an attempt, literally, I see no use in responding to this one." You (addressing me) interpreted that to mean, "there would NOT be a response forthcoming."
"Although I started with an attempt, literally, I see no use in responding to this one."
"I've already drafted a response, and I WILL be responding to this one."
Moreover, re-read my comment. Not only does it state that a response was already drafted at the time of the email, IN NO MANNER did I "state quite clearly that there would NOT be a response forthcoming." I simply shared my lack of motivation in responding.


-when I say belief, I refer specifically to the belief that God exists as described in the Bible.
When I say believer or saint, I refer specifically to those who have believed and known God, and henceforth accepted the provision of the Gospel: Jesus Christ.
The biblical definition of a believer is one whose spirit has been regenerated by God.
Does this mean that any person who utters with their mouth "I believe" is regenerated thusly? Certainly not.
The difference between being a member of the church and simply attending church is precisely this matter of regeneration. Again, belief refers to something that actually happens to the subject in the spiritual realm. Anything less than this is a mere puffing up of the religious mind.
... I would like to make it clear that belief cannot be effected by reason, intellect or religion. The reason simply stated is that only God can regenerate a dead spirit. Only God can enable our belief (John 6:65)
Here's the catch: belief is purported to be a spiritual phenomenon that flows from God to the believer. This means that no amount of anything we initiate can effect belief.
- atheists and skeptics naturally assume belief is also best apprehended via one's own intellect and reason. Woe to us believers who also mistakenly believe thusly!
nothing a person can initiate can ever restore themselves or another to a right relationship with God. No amount of science or evidence or philosophy or argumentation can suffice, and every fruitless intellectual discussion with an atheist belabors this point. In the same vein, every religion is revealed to be mere vainglory: no amount of dogma or sacraments or confessions or services can regenerate a spirit that is dead unto God.
People shall never enter the kingdom of God through our encouragement, persuasion, argument, inducement, excitement, or attraction; entrance can be gained only by new birth, by nothing less than the resurrection of the spirit.
-Ibid.
We might be tempted to say, "That's not so, after all, I came to believe because of such-and-such evidence or so-and-so's argument." If that's the case, our spirits may not have ever been regenerated at all. If you fancy yourself a believer, do you feel an emptiness despite that fact?
... because only God can enable belief, and that by nothing less than a spiritual act...
They may end up believing in the supernatural - but this does not make them believers or saints - hence belief in the supernatural remains as useless as anything else that's not God's regeneration.
We might be tempted to say, "That's not so, after all, I came to believe because of such-and-such evidence or so-and-so's argument." If that's the case, our spirits may not have ever been regenerated at all.
If it is true that belief cannot be effected by our reason, intellect, science, religion, evidence or rational abilities, the onus is on the skeptic to either humbly ask God to help them accept this limitation, or risk perishing in their stubbornness.
Do children set terms for their parents?
This is why Jesus often rebuked those who demanded miraculous signs: they're a cheap form of flattery easily employable by any supernatural agent who's gained a foothold.
We must rely on faith to interpret all supernatural experiences.
“In fact, every single conversion requires active participation on behalf of the subject.”
“Human beings can either obey or violate commands.”
I'm saying the Bible teaches that, although nothing from ourselves can save ourselves, and the entire thing can only happen by the power of God, we still have a say in the matter: we have to accept what God has enabled. God doesn't just clobber non-believers over the head one day and turn them into believers against their free will...
Romans 10:13 is true, we do in fact have a say in the matter. God enables, we accept.
i'm just gonna be as real as possibly here - your third installment of the series sucks ass jim. you really disappointed me in your continued assumptions and false associations. i gave you a bit of clarification (which, by the way has been on my site for months if you would but seek), and you use it to run ten miles and associate me with everything from calvinism to arminianism to total depravity doctrine.
although i started with an attempt, literally, i see no use in responding to this one, there's simply TOO MUCH DIRT to throw off. i'll never be able to recover from those assumptions to whoever's reading your blog. they'll probably just take the fact that you're a good writer as grounds to believe whatever you say about another dumb believer. and there's no comments, so nobody can even challenge it.
would it be good faith if i construed your atheism as entailing "baby eating" or "lacking moral values?" hell no it wouldn't. you got some real nerve sometimes man.
cl:
The more you write things like this, the more I'm persuaded that all you really seek is contention. I've addressed your argument from my POV, with absolutely no ad hominem inferences whatsoever. Obviously I knew you'd disagree, since mine is a critique of your position. That's why I've offered you the last word rebuttal, to...uh...you know...REBUT! Clarify. Add. Subtract. Anything you like, free and clear. I didn't say anything analogous to 'baby eating' or 'lacking moral values'.
Dirt? Why, because I brought up the two ends of the spectrum, Arminianism and Calvinism, regarding pre-destination? You'll 'never be able to recover' because I'm a 'good writer'??? No comments? YOU can comment, cl. Unchallenged. That's the whole point of this format, for crissakes!
Here's the real problem, as I see it. You just don't have the stuff, cl. Oh, you bluster and point fingers about how nobody's being cogent 'cept for poor little ol' you, but in the end, all you've really got is a knack for flame wars. I figured this format would bug you in the end, because it takes you out of your comfort zone, where you can mitigate, seek allies, and rile everybody up to your heart's content. On the other hand, I had hopes that you might find value in rising above all that. But you can't do it, can you? This is what you like, arguing towards no purpose. Even during our simple correspondence to set this thing up with you, you've tried to get me going on more than one occasion, but I just wouldn't bite. And now this response. You're nothing but a big baby, cl.
Put up or shut up, ya wuss.
P.S. Since you've decided to not participate here, I guess I'll use this interchange in lieu of an actual response by you. Suck THAT ass, you internet miscreant. Grow some.



So, what's the lesson to learn here, and what is the larger analogy in discussions of (a)theism?
There exists a certain subset of atheists and skeptics who lean with great confidence on the impression that each and every stepping stone of their philosophies constitute justifiable beliefs, but as the case of cathode rays demonstrates, that beliefs are deemed "justified" even on account of repeatable experiments has nothing to do with whether those beliefs are in fact true. In fact, I'll go out on an epistemological limb here, and provisionally argue that there is no objective, undeniable reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified ones: justified beliefs often prove false (as did belief in cathode rays), and unjustified beliefs often prove true (as did belief in asteroids).
...that there is no objective, undeniable reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified ones...
...there is no objective, undeniable reason to prefer justified beliefs over unjustified ones...
So, besides the obvious psychological self-soothing, what do we really gain to say that our beliefs are justified, if the quality of being justified is no reliable indicator of truth?


Many atheists — dare I say the majority — operate under the assumed premise that "there's no evidence for God (and/or the supernatural)." Many wave this around as some sort of trump card, but I opine that such is merely biased opinion masquerading as justification for denial. Like DD, I believe "there's no evidence for God" is one of the worst arguments floating around (a)theism, and I remain puzzled as to the strange, pseudo-intellectual pretense with which I see that argument waged. Today and tomorrow, I'd like to review two examples from science's history that I think illustrate the weakness of the "there's no evidence for God" argument. The larger analogy to (a)theism should be apparent.
... I believe "there's no evidence for God" is one of the worst arguments floating around (a)theism...
In actuality, what the person who utters those words really means is that they've not been persuaded by anything hitherto offered as evidence, which is an accurate assessment of the matter. From an atheist, this is also a tautology, because if it's known that the person who says "there's no evidence for God" is an atheist, that they've not yet been persuaded by any evidence is merely redundant. In rigorous discussion, I believe one would be justified in rejecting the "no evidence for God" argument solely on these grounds (subjectivity, tautology), but I think we have other sound reasons to reject it.
Note that "there's no evidence for X" is really just a generic argument where X always represents some proposition whose theoretical or ontological possibility is being denied.
In actuality, what the person who utters those words really means is that they've not been persuaded by anything hitherto offered as evidence, which is an accurate assessment of the matter.
All examples of poisoning the well. (jim)
Many atheists-dare I say the majority-operate under the assumed premise that "there's no evidence for God (and/or the supernatural)." Many wave this around as some sort of trump card, but I opine that such is merely biased opinion masquerading as justification for denial. (cl)
[poisoning the well] involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person... This argument has the following form: "Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false."
..attempting to poison the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
Note again that I did not present adverse information about a target, nor did I use my statement to discredit or ridicule everything a target is about to say.
My real problem with this article is that I believe cl's critique boils down to a semantical quibble, centering around the term 'evidence'.
When a theist tells me 'there is a God', I automatically take into consideration that this statement reflects a body of knowledge and concomitant beliefs on the part of the subject, and don't merely reject or lampoon his assertion as substance-less or mindlessly arrogant on the grounds of the assertion itself. This is common sense.
..what this all comes down to is the difference between evidence, and EVIDENCE. On one hand, any crazy story ever told by anyone about anything can be considered as evidence according to the nit-pickiest, all-inclusive sort of definition. On the other hand, most people are quite comfortable in rejecting questionable claims as 'evidence' with the universally understood, though ofttimes unstated caveats.
Ultimately, it seems that the pertinent part of cl's message can be summed up in the sentence, 'Reality isn't always what we think it is, and opinions about what constitutes good evidence are sometimes overturned by that reality'. But then, everybody already knows this...don't they?




