I answered your questions, Dave. Perhaps you may have the time to read something recent, and not month-old writing pre-Philaletheia and its code of conduct?
A month old is not recent? We are talking about timeless truths here. How often does you position change?
It's rather bizarre, Randy. He seriously argued (at length) that he would (quite openly) be a no-holds-barred smart ass on his own blog (his "homepage" above) while being a gentleman on the other blog that he shares with a Christian.
My own interaction with him puts the lie to this. I was quite skeptical that he could pull off such a schizoid act, from the beginning (based on an earlier exchange I had with him), and made that clear, yet I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I really was. He denies this, but it's true. I'm as willing as anyone else to give someone another chance to make it right.
But the verdict is now in. He may tone it down, but he is not two people. What he expresses on his blog are his true opinions, no matter how "nice" and restrained he attempts to be on this other blog for the purpose of "PR" or show or whatever he would call it.
A pompous, condescending ass (and anti-Christian bigot) will remain that no matter how much he tries to cover it up, because attitudes emanate from the heart, or the interior of a person, and don't change simply due to window-dressing of nicey-nicey words here and there.
To be fair dave - you act like a schitzo on philaletheia and here as well.
(Wondering if this post will see light on your blog? )
Honey, not venom, Dave.
'He's clearly been hurt and/or disenchanted. He's gotten a raw deal somewhere along the line, to become both so bitter and irrational (not to mention blasphemous).'
You've been an apologist for how many years, and you actually believe this? Let's try it when it's directed at you: 'You've clearly been at one point in a highly emotional state and accepted the belief in the supernatural in desperation, and now try to rationalize your belief.' (Of course, I don't actually believe this, but you argue so at my character, and it rings hollow.)
If you presuppose that I had a 'falling out' with Jesus, I am here to correct you: I did not, and such an attack of an 'anti-atheist bigot' when directed at you is as empty as when you throw it at me.
If he would simply admit that the scientific method is irrelevant to the question of whether the universe solely consists of matter and energy, or might also contain spirit, the discussion could go somewhere. The notion that science has a syllable to utter on this question is absurd.
Dave, your summary on this conversation hit the nail on the head - having been a former atheist, I can affirm that you have correctly discerned the inner workings of a prideful and pretentious person. Jesus's gospel offended the practice of human heirarchy and those who suffered from this spiritual malady. It was not out of hostility, but out of loving compassion that He attempted to uproot those who were destined for spiritual deprivation. I pray for atheists - I've been in that hellhole of denial and spiritual viruses - I was never taught to love the truth. Just wanted to affirm and encourage your work here!
Thanks, Beautiful feet. I appreciate it. I'm sure your prayers for dt will be especially powerful in light of your own experience and empathy.
If you presuppose that I had a 'falling out' with Jesus, I am here to correct you: I did not
No need to correct because I never asserted this in the first place. "Disenchanted" takes in a large spectrum of life experience, far beyond the religious sphere.
drunkenmind gives us another classic specimen of the Angry Atheist Meltdown Syndrome on his blog:
[excerpts: my interjections in brackets]:
Lazy
It looks like I'm moving up in the world!
Don’t you think it’s cute when another man likes you so much that he writes all about you? Well, the noted Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has a thing for me, it seems. He just can’t get enough.
. . . Behe is just ignorant. . . . his intent is to posit a supernatural ‘answer’ that is worthless, for Behe makes no argument whatsoever on the mechanism of how such ‘intelligent’ designer operates. In other words, Behe and other IDiots say, ‘POOF!, and that is how it happened. I cannot explain it because I don’t even care to read up on the relevant literature, so it must be magic.’
[yes; impeccable logic. Follow me on this for a minute: "Nothing else but scientific method exists; therefore no one is able to make the slightest statement without using scientific method, nor is anyone permitted to speculate that scientific knowledge has any ending-point beyond which it cannot comment, by definition. And this is NOT circular reasoning because I say so and anyone with a different view I will automatically assume to be an IDiot!!!!"]
Dave Armstrong is convinced that prayer will somehow exercise my atheism like a surgeon removes a cancer.
[No, not at all (one would hope you could get something right once in a blue moon in your descriptions of my alleged opinions, if only by accident, like an unplugged clock being right twice a day). Prayer does not evince an automatic answer. It is dependent on God and Providence and, secondarily on the free will of the person for whom it is offered. God won't change your free will if you insist on rejecting and blaspheming Him. You may very well reject God the rest of your life and end up in hell because of it. Or you may not. Prayer is an act of charity out of the concern for the well-being of another: physically, emotionally, and spiritually.]
. . . He dedicates himself to a book and an imaginary friend; I think it’s just a book, and I am tired of having people waste their time believing in fairy tales and bumps in the night. He can go on believing what he wants, but one day he might pull a Peter Pan and actually grow up and live in the real world.
[ME, cited by dt]: "His self-admitted "hate" will do him no good (like Ebeneezer Scrooge, he will suffer more than anyone else he inflicts with the hatred). He's clearly been hurt and/or disenchanted. He's gotten a raw deal somewhere along the line, to become both so bitter and irrational (not to mention blasphemous)."
Can you hear the veiled threat in his first sentence? ‘He will suffer...’ I suppose, for not believing. The image of Jacob Marley shoveling the last bits of coal into the Franklin stove creeps to mind. Am I to burn in Hell? I guess I better believe, then.
You can see that Dave Armstrong attempts to rationalize wh
(cont.)
. . . why I dislike his brand of ignorance: someone has hurt me in the past, it must be, so that is why I do not believe;
[I did not assert this. I simply asserted that it seemed to me that the man has been hurt and disenchanted by something in the past (apart from the question of reasons for his disbelief). I can't prove it, and don't claim to have done so, but it seems 99% certain to me, based on my knowledge of psychology and long experience in dealing with all sorts of people of all kinds of beliefs and personalities. It's very obvious to me that there are factors here (whatever they are) beyond merely intellectual ones. There always are when a person insists on being vulgar, condescending, and pompous. That suggests personal insecurity, which in turn comes from something else, like emotional abuse in the past or being forsaken, betrayed, etc.]
. . . Dave most likely wanted so desperately to believe, and one day he learned that if he shouted loud enough and long enough, he would talk back to himself, and this was God enough for him.
. . . Dave Armstrong’s high horse is invisible, just like the Emperor’s clothes. His backside is muddy, however, because he cannot resist a personal attack: It turns out that I am ‘[a] pompous, condescending ass (and anti-Christian bigot).’
Too bad God doesn’t exist, because that’s some perfect Christian love I’m sure he’d love to see.
[that's NOTHING compared to what Jesus said about the Pharisees (hypocrites like yourself), and we are called to imitate Jesus. There is nothing wrong with stating a manifest truth. Here are some of Jesus' words: "blind guides . . . blind fools" (Matthew 23:16-17), "whitewashed tombs . . . full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (23:27-2
. "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" (23:33). I haven't even said that you will go to hell for sure. I dont know that; no man can.]
I enjoy Ben’s writings because he is honest, well-thought-out, and in search of the truth, whatever it may be. His personal religious history is very interesting, and he has committed himself to helping others. He is a good man, and regardless if he were an atheist or a Christian, I would count him as a friend, and someone I can trust.
[Excellent; then hopefully he will convince you that your soul is in great peril and your bitterness will destroy you. He is the Christian that God in His providence has in your life at this time: someone you respect. That's what it's all about. It is the only thing that breaks through the atheist walls. His personal witness may be what God uses to change your mind, by His grace.
But it is always a danger to be liked more than to preach the full truth. We Christians have to guard against that, because it is very easy to fall into a sort of diplomatic mode where we are more concerned tha
(cont.)
. . . that people like us personally than with presenting the fullness of Christian truth, including its "offensive" elements. I would warn Ben against that just as I would any other Christian, including myself. I don't enjoy being despised by people, but sometimes it is unavoidable if it comes down to a choice between being liked or doing my duty as an apologist / evangelist and proclaiming unpopular truths. May God help me to always do the latter if the stark choice is unavoidable. And sometimes we can be as charitable as possible and someone will still despise us. But in any event, there comes a time for stern words, if it is clear that they are well-deserved, and for the good of the person hearing them, and for others led astray by the same person]
http://drunkentune.blogspot.com/...07/01/
lazy.html
beepbeepitsme wrote on the other blog:
beepbeepitsme Says:
January 4th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Re drunken
I agree that he seems to want a fight. Fights are so boring I think, as all that is required is the ability to be an abject pr**k.
If it comes down to a slanging match no one learns anything except perhaps new ways to insult each other. And I am not sure that I need to learn new ways to be insulting.
I think the reality may be that for some people, the questioning of the existence of their god and/or their god belief, IS an insult in and of itself.
They may be slowly stewing away because someone dared to question their belief system, until the lid on the pot lifts off and they lose the plot.
We are not so far away, historically, from a time when to question either the existence of god, or god belief was a capital offence. People still get testy if you question a belief system which is so culturally and politically ingrained. They more than likely see it as a direct assault and a directly insulting to them.
Having said that, I have the sneaking suspicion that the world is full of religious believers of all kinds who would like their particular brand of religion to go unchallenged. In fact, they would go so far as to demand that according to law.
Religion appears to be the last belief system in which its adherents require and sometimes demand exemption from scrutiny and criticism.
http://philaletheia.thetruthtree...st/#comment-
734
Dave,
I just read your "Old Habits Die Hard" and a solution comes to mind that could help you determine the flow of a conversation with an athiest from the outset. I was listening to a recording of the EWTN program "The Journey Home" (the specific one doesn't come to mind at present) awhile ago about how to rationally dialogue with an athiest.
The advice given was to ask the athiest up front that if someone could provide substantial evidence enough of Gods existance to them then would that change their mind? If they say no then of course their bias likely extends beyond hope (though a seed could still be planted) and you can predetermine an exit strategy much sooner.
However, from a compassionate standpoint you can also appeal to this person because likely as the closing comments you made in the end state, he/she likely has deeper rooted issues to the problem and it is worth the time to perhaps deal with them on a more personal level and assess the deeper reasoning why someone is rejecting Christ. i.e. Where they abused by someone who was supposedly a Christian? And then reflect on what a being a Christian really means above the stereotype and then in turn be the example that that person needs.
If drunken tune cares to reach me in this regard he can email me at mordenkeinen@gmail.com.
In Christ,
Jonathan
Good point. Indeed, I have often pondered how people's emotions and will interact with (often determine) their intellectual positions.
Of course, most people will deny this. We all like to think of ourselves as these completely rational machines, who come to positions based solely on intelligence and rationality, not because of will of emotion.
soulster (the Christian) wrote:
It has occured to me lately that the narrative of Creation has so formed our cultural understanding and language that almost all the current conversation is in reference to those ideas. For example: I was having a conversation with two people, both life long believers, talking about the origins of the universe. They pointed out the idea that “something can’t come from nothing”. I said that I didn’t think many people these days say that. Most agree that something must be eternal (or close to it): either God or the universe (mass-energy). So either the universe always was, or the universe came out of God who always was.
They seemed to have trouble getting the universe as eternal. After going around on several objections, I realized that the problem was they were could only think in the narrative frame of Creation and it didn’t make sense to them since, if you only have the universe, there is a big hole where the creator should be standing. Since the universe comes out of God in that narrative, when God was removed, they saw the universe creating itself, which was silly. It think that’s why when an atheist says God didn’t create the world, for most believers, the default is then, “well, then you’re saying the universe created itself.”
----------------------
I replied:
Saying "something can come from nothing" as the atheist position is not the best way to put it. Rather, the thought is that matter is eternal and can produce everything there is. That is what my argument was in my paper on "Deo-Atomism."
What I was driving at was the notion of the materialist atheist that matter can do everything there is to do in this universe, and has, in fact, achieved all by itself what we see in the universe. This puts matter very much in the place that we Christians put God (hence my vastly-misunderstood satire about atheists believing in trillions of "atom-gods").
Therefore (so I contended), the atheist is every bit as religious as we are; probably even more so). He exercises every bit as much faith: probably more so.
There is no proof that matter is eternal, according to present scientific understanding (e.g., the laws of thermodynamics), and much indication that it is not.
No theory of an "oscillating universe" has been proven (or arguably can be proven) according to present understanding. To do so would require "meta-science" (essentially and literally, metaphysics), and since that is supposedly impermissible for the Christian to do, why should it be permissible for the materialist? Another double standard . . .
All they are, are bald theories, based on little more than wishful thinking and the desire to avoid any hint of "creationist" understanding (even in the broadest sense of any kind of minimalist theistic evolutionism, such as that held by Kenneth Miller), or metaphysical non-materialism.
It's faith; it's acceptance of the unproven (perhaps unprovable in this case) axiom.
(cont.)
This is virtually my entire point in the recent pathetic, "can never get to [the epistemological] first base with the atheist" exchanges.
The Wikipedia article on "Ultimate fate of the universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ult...of_the_universe
provides an overview of the atheist conundrum:
"Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model. A somewhat similar idea is embraced by the cyclic model, but this idea evades heat death, because of an expansion of the branes dilute entropy accumulated in the previous cycle.
Multiverse: no complete end
The Multiverse (or parallel universe in the singular case) scenario states that while our universe may be of finite duration, it is but one universe among many. Moreover, the physics of the multiverse may permit it to exist indefinitely. In particular, other universes may be subject to physical laws differing from those that apply in our own universe."
BINGO! To posit this, one must theorize about other universes with different physical / natural laws than ours. But to do that is precisely to speculate outside of present-day science. So it becomes pure metaphysics and non-scientific speculation.
How, then, is it any fundamentally different from Christians talking about God, Whose qualities are also outside of present-day scientific knowledge or purview?
There is no difference. Both sides must engage in technically non-scientific metaphysical philosophy in order to have these opinions. The Christian freely admits that there can be a non-scientific knowledge, even pertaining to physical things. The materialist atheist will not acknowledge this, and so is subject to a perpetual epistemological double standard
and vicious circle of reasoning.
The non-materialist atheist, such as David Chalmers, does not exercise a double standard, because he admits that there are things that cannot be adequately explained by science, and that there may therefore be non-material entities that must be accounted for, whether there is a God or not.
I have no problem with that; I have a problem with unsubstantiated dogma and unproven premises masquerading as proven or ultra-respectable science, when it is neither science nor "respectable" (if by that we mean substantiated and proven or having any scientific, empirical evidence for itself at all).
I'm right there on the boat with you on that one. I've long held a suspicion that emotion (especially within the last 50 years) has been a greater driving force in opinion than solid information, otherwise we would close up shop on most media outlets whose ratings are derived more by the emotionally stirred than the truly informed. Otherwise (as an example) we would hear more about the many positive things happening in Iraq (Of which I shall very soon be returning to for the second so I know this first hand...very demeaning to us military folk).
This could also explain the great success of Protestant churches in attracting non-believers and Catholics alike. Many have adopted what I call "feel good entertainment" (as opposed to traditional services) to bring in the masses i.e. Mega churches. This is part of why I am now a budding Catholic. Don't get me wrong I am not opposed to celebrating the Lord in a joyful manner as this, I just hate feeling like I'm at a concert every worship service than a Church.
My theory is the sensationalism crowd that has so endoctrinated us over the past 50 years has us so moved emotionally that often we are driven to become irrational people. Such and such invokes a negative emotional response therefore it must be bad and therefore I was must then find something rational sounding to further a more positive emotional gain. This in turn convinces us we are intellectual and rational just as we like to be seen. "Someone hurt me, therefore God doesn't exist, praise be Darwin Allah!"
Makes sense to me when I see the utterly foolish so content to live in their warped realities. I think when we can convince people that being rational sometimes means accepting things that are difficult and sometimes hurtful to our pride of self then we can break some ground. As a 27 year, lifelong protestant I face this with Marian and other doctrines of the RCC that have been ingrained in me as utterly evil. When I want to run I realize that it is indicative of the emotional response and not the rational one so I press on. Someone learn from me please! lol
and here is beepbeep's latest rant on drunkenmind's blog:
------------------
Yeah - I will pray for him and I hope he suffers in hell are just NOT convincing arguments for atheists.
It might scare the religious readers of his blog into continued compliance, but they have missed the boat if they think the veiled threats will scare an atheist into god belief.
The "you are going to hell threat and similar" remind me of the story where Bre'r Fox threatens to throw Bre'r Rabbit in the briar patch.
After being thrown into the briar patch, Bre'r Rabbit exclaims - "Born and raised in a briar patch!"
In other words, it is considered a worthless threat.
The concept of praying for someone who doesn't agree with you is a weird one too, but one which illicits much sympathy and pious nodding of heads from the assembled on-lookers.
When someone offers to pray for me (if they do so as a means to avoid discussion on a topic), I usually retort with something like this.
And may darwin bless you and your children with many genetic mutations.
It doesn't resolve anything of course, but then I can at least get a smile out of it.
1/04/2007 4:01 AM
I rant? Nah. You must interpret text in a very emotional way to assume my words are a rant. Perhaps it is just your case of projection?
Commenting by HaloScan
