an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Fundamentally Flawed, Episodes 47 and 48

Jim and I talking to Nide can be heard here.

The whole gang talking rubbish about the week’s events can be heard here.

 

ENJOY

Single Post Navigation

95 thoughts on “Fundamentally Flawed, Episodes 47 and 48

  1. Wow. Seriously, Nide seems like a likeable guy, but he continues to come across like the stock character of a recurring Saturday Night Live skit. I’m only 42 minutes in, but Nide continues to come across as a caricature of himself. Everything he says essentially makes fun of the position he himself affirms. What’s amazing, almost depressing, is that he doesn’t seem to see it. Yes, face-palming is the activity which listening to this podcast will prompt a person to do over and over and over.

    Nide continues to act on the premise that one can arbitrarily pick and choose what he “starts” with, only that what he arbitrarily picks and chooses to start with is true, and everything and everyone else is false and question-begging. He offers no positive support for his evaluations; his entire apologetic consists of asking, in a most juvenile manner, a series of “how do you know?” questions which, when posed to him, he answers with the conspicuously uninformative reply, “by faith!” Since neither Alex nor Jim answer any questions of how they know things by saying, “by faith!” they are automatically considered by Nide to be wrong, fallacious, illogical, irrational, you name it. Again, Wow! It’s really as though the guy is speaking without any awareness of the meaning of what he’s saying, and instead seems to be parroting canned slogans and stock dismissals popularized by other apologists just to wriggle out of the perpetual tight spot he’s in. Truly, he is presuppositionalism’s Frankenstein – mindlessly regurgitating what’s been programmed into his mind by crazed unthinkers, and unpredictable in regards to the destruction he may cause to himself.

    I dare not listen to this while driving in Bangkok traffic. I really don’t want to be the cause of a major pile-up!!!

    Regards,
    Dawson

  2. Just finished listening to the whole thing. Two things to say: 1. Wow again! and 2. All presuppositionalists need to listen to this and do their best to clean up after this guy Nide. All I can say to those who undertake this challenge is: Good fucking luck!!

    Seriously, the guy stepped into his own trap hook, line and sinker, and realized (probably frantic at this point) that he needed to duck out ASAP, for no amount of damage control was going to undo the self-destruction that he walked right into.

    I’m really looking forward to listening to this again.

    Regards,
    Dawson

  3. Nide is brilliant value for money, always game to discuss his beliefs, more willing to engage than Sye, and far braver than Bob Sorensen. He’s also woefully ignorant of his own argument, but presents the problems with the presup worldview so spectacularly that we could almost leave him to his own devices and he’d single handedly destroy the TAG.

    • Reasonable Sanity on said:

      Alex, absolutely agreed! At least Hez hasn’t picked up the “I don’t discuss the bible with non-believers…” or the “we talk about that all the time in our bible study” vis-a-vis Bahnsen. Sye sounds like he’s simply parroting a typical Bahnsen debate. I’ve had debates with presuppers locally, and without realizing it, knew immediately how to defuse their argument by showing that logic is a tool, and that absolute certainty is a fool’s gold for knowledge.

  4. @Dawson

    long time to hear, how are you doing? I have not had a chance to listen to the pod cast yet but plan on it. Sounds like it will be very entertaining:)

  5. oops! meant to say long time no hear:)

  6. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    I love Alex’s vivid and wild imagination.

  7. Reasonable Sanity on said:

    As Dawson has already said, wow. Just simply wow. Hezekiah has again demonstrated that he really doesn’t have any idea what his argument really is. Again, he’s been exposed as just making up an argument for argument’s sake. Van Til is his god, as he admitted, although unwittingly. Straight from the horse’s mouth, right? While Hez may be a devout Calvinist, and follower of Van Til and Bahnsen, all he’s really getting across is that he doesn’t really know what they’re talking about, but yet he believes it 100%. Of course, Sye Ten Bruggencate doesn’t really fare much better, but at least he doesn’t start contradicting himself until your well into the discussion when he gets to personal revelation. They all like to question reasoning, but yet, how did they get to repentance? Sye says repentance comes before knowledge, thus if we can’t trust our reasoning, how do we know we have to repent? How can we reason to this point if god doesn’t make his revelation until we repent?

    If Hez has no reason to believe what a non-believer says, why would he even ask him or her questions?

    Presupps can do nothing but borrow from the objectivist world view, in order to argue against everyone else’s world view.

    • Reasonable Sanity on said:

      Alex nailed the point about becoming a christian. If you can’t reason “clearly” without a god, then how can you reason yourself to the fact that you need to repent. presuppers minds explode when posed with this question.

  8. Reasonable Sanity on said:

    Hez says for proof of God’s existence, “Look out your window!” Yet, when you explain to him that what you see is a world that exists due to naturalistic processes, he then asks, “How can you trust your senses, man?”.

    Um, why bother telling someone the answer is inevitable if they look out of their window, yet we can’t trust what we see, why give that as an answer? Duh.

  9. Reasonable Sanity on said:

    Sorry to be posting so much, but I’m listening to this podcast on the fly. Jim and Alex, excellent point against Calvinism. If god has already called his elect to him, then what is the point in evangelics? Why don’t all the elect just congregate together, put out advertisements, and wait for others to join their group? I mean, there is no reason at all to preach and outreach.

    • Feel free to post as much as you like!

    • RS paraphrased Jim & Alex’s argument as follows: If god has already called his elect to him, then what is the point in evangelics? Why don’t all the elect just congregate together, put out advertisements, and wait for others to join their group? I mean, there is no reason at all to preach and outreach.

      I’ve put this same question to evangelicals, and sad to say, they have a wholly consistent answer:

      “God tells them to”

      Simply put, God commands people to barf Scripture at each other, and (for the Calvinist) this has nothing to do with converting people. He/she/it is merely following instructions.

      Of course, this brings up another problem: most evangelicals do more than merely barf scripture: they try to reason and convince people of the validity of the evangelicals beliefs. This is a sign that the believer isn’t as confident of their faith as they pretend, and thus needs to find some way to validate or justify it.

      In short, Calvinists are only pretending to know they’re elected, and evangelicals are pretending they’re only following instructions.

  10. Reasonable Sanity
    If god has already called his elect to him, then what is the point in evangelics? Why don’t all the elect just congregate together, put out advertisements, and wait for others to join their group? I mean, there is no reason at all to preach and outreach.
    Amen, brother.

    Sorry, I had to say that!

  11. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    RS,

    you don’t know anything.

  12. I wouldn’t talk if I was you. You keep making an idiot of yourself on the FF podcast, and then you go around accusing others of not knowing anything?

    How sodding stupid are you?

  13. Everybody look out, Hezekiah has discovered Rene Descartes! If you thought the philosophically skeptical nonsense was bad now, expect him to turn it up to 11 going forward.

  14. “I am a philosophy major.”

    why am I not surprised…

  15. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    So, Justin why are you so ignorant?

  16. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah,

    How do you account for your likability and joviality on air versus how you come across online?

    Ydemoc

  17. Straight question, Nide – why do you troll online?

    • Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

      Ydemoc,

      “atheist” are ignorant that’s why.

      • We’ve been endlessly polite with you, we’ve even tried to help you, and you respond by acting like a troll.

        You have behaved appallingly – you are incomprehensible most of the time, a pathological liar by all evidence (really, what’s all the ‘I’m not Nide, I’m Richard!’ stuff about? If you ARE Richard why have you allowed people to think you’re Nide? You claimed you’d logged in as Nide by mistake a couple of times, but then told use you didn’t have a computer, something doesn’t make sense here. Do you hate your brother so much that you’d let an innocent party be made to look a laughing stock online? Are you really so prideful that you don’t want your own name linked to your idiocy? Can you see why people don’t trust you?), and possibly the worst ‘apologist’ imaginable.

        Come clean, are you really an atheist presenting a parody of what happens when a mind gets broken by religion?

  18. I will forever more think of Hezekiah Ahaz when I consider Poe’s law.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law

  19. Ydemoc on said:

    I asked Hezekiah: “How do you account for your likability and joviality on air versus how you come across online?”

    Hezekiah wrote: “‘atheist’ are ignorant that’s why.”

    And is faith the ultimate reason “atheists'” are ignorant, Hezekiah?

    And if we all operate on faith (according to your world view), regardless of whether we know it or not, why does the bible talk about a “lack of faith?” How can somebody sustain his or her life if they lack that which provides the basis for living?

    Ydemoc

  20. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Ydemoc,

    See Alex is a great example of an extremely ignorant “athiest”.

    His been corrected over and over but continues in his ignorance.

    Alex I don’t even know if you are real.

    Why do you exist?

    How do you know you exist?

    Where do you get your certainty from?

    Have you ever read Descartes?

    Do you know why Descartes was certain that he was real?

    Now, let’s see if you fix yourself.

    • “Alex I don’t even know if you are real.”

      You’ve read my words, you’ve spoken to me in real time on Skype, my photograph is easily found online, along with moving images of me, yet you STILL don’t know if I’m real??

      You need help from a mental health professional.

  21. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah wrote: “His [sic] been corrected over and over but continues in his ignorance.”

    Is faith responsible for your error above?

    Ydemoc

  22. Nide, please explain why, if you are in fact Richard, you have allowed your innocent brother to become a laughing stock? Do you hate him?

    Or are you really called Nide, and a pathological liar?

  23. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Alex,

    I gave my explanation you believe it or you don’t.

    Keep being an ignorant.

    Now, what’s a lie?

    How do you know what a lie is?

    What’s your standard of truth?

    Is it certain?

    Where do you get this certainty from?

  24. The truth is you are Nide, isn’t it? The truth is you are a pathological liar, isn’t it?

  25. Ydemoc on said:

    Pressupositionalists are bad sports, like bratty chess opponents. When they find themselves losing, they want to start the match over again using the same ol’ moves; or they’ll take liberty with certain pieces, making moves that are prohibited; or they will overturn the table, making a mess of things as a way of being able to claim that never really lost. And if on those rare occasion that they happen to play out the game to the bitter end, only to find themselves in checkmate, they will attempt to declare victory anyway. Such behavior is a direct result of embracing a world view that promotes the notion that “wishing makes it so.”

    Checkmate, Hezekiah.

    Ydemoc

  26. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah,

    Oh, and when you get around to it, try not to let your faith that you “live by,” allow you to forget to answer this little ditty:

    Hezekiah wrote: “His [sic] been corrected over and over but continues in his ignorance.”

    Is faith responsible for your error above?

    Ydemoc

  27. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Alex,

    What is truth?

    Ydemoc,

    No, hunger.

  28. “Presupbullshitonalists”

    I think I may start using this in casual conversation…

  29. “Jesus Christ = Truth.”

    Ok, now provide some evidence that he existed.

  30. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    The gospels.

  31. ….because, if you can’t, then you’re back to square one and will have to provide some different evidence for the supposed existence of Jesus

  32. Hezekiah ahaz on said:

    Because if you reject the words of christ you can’t know anything.

    You are a great example of it.

    So, then what is truth?

  33. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah wrote: “Because if you reject the words of christ you can’t know anything.”

    If I reject the words of “christ” [sic] do I know that I’ve rejected the words of Christ?

    Ydemoc

  34. Hezekiah ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    That’s been answered.

    Ydmedoc,

    Yes and No.

  35. “Yes and No”

    so much for the law of identity I guess:)

  36. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah wrote: “Because if you reject the words of christ you can’t know anything.”

    I responded: “If I reject the words of “christ” [sic] do I know that I’ve rejected the words of Christ?”

    Hezekiah responded: “Yes and No.”

    Yes, I do know I’ve rejected them and no I don’t know I’ve rejected them? Thanks for clearing that up.

    Doesn’t one need to know about something before one can accept or reject it? I believe you were checkmated by Alex and Jim on the podcast regarding this very question.

    By the way, how do you account for Christ not relieving the suffering of desert-dwelling people by telling them about and/or providing a cure for Tourrette Syndrome and rabies, and providing them with such miracles as flushing toilets, electricity, and air conditioning?

    How do you account for that?

    Ydemoc

  37. Hezekiah ahaz on said:

    “Yes, I do know I’ve rejected them and no I don’t know I’ve rejected them? Thanks for clearing that up. ”

    You understand what we are telling you. However, you don’t know what we are telling you. If you knew, you would have repented a long time ago.

    That’s enough to leave with you without excuse.

    “Doesn’t one need to know about something before one can accept or reject it? I believe you were checkmated by Alex and Jim on the podcast regarding this very question.”

    see above.

    The rest of your questions are useless.

  38. That’s been answered.

    Hezekiah, your explanation of the mustard seed scripture has nothing to do with THIS conversation (remember, context is important). You clearly reject the words of Christ when it comes to God’s opinion on the smallest of seeds – and according to you, this means you can know nothing.

    Care to stick that foot deeper into your mouth? Perhaps it’d be best if you just tell yourself “there is no foot”…

  39. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    Satan uses scripture to harass Christians too.

    So, how is it that you are not under the influence of Satan?

  40. Hezekiah, do you reject the notion that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds?

  41. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Why do you enjoy harrassing Christians?

  42. I don’t enjoy harassing “Christians”.

    At worst, I’m harassing you. However, I’m morbidly curious about how you could possibly maintain your opinions even as you demonstrate that they’re faulty. Really, that’s all. You seem not to be interested in writing things that are correct – so I’m trying to figure out what, exactly, you’re interested in here.

    It’s not Jesus, because you spend very little time talking about him. It’s not debate or discussion, because you avoid most of the questions or points being raised. It’s not truth, because you’re wrong far more often than you are right. It’s not understanding the people you disagree with, because you don’t even try.

    If you’re not interested in being right, why are you here, Hezekiah?

  43. I have Christian friends, and I treat none of them like the way I treat you, Hezekiah. This is because they don’t treat me the way you do.

    It’s pretty simple. If you want to be persecuted for your beliefs, believe in stupid things in public.

  44. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    You don’t know what truth is.

    You dont know anything.

    Why do you keep using language?

    Why do you keep wasting my time?

  45. Why do you keep wasting my time?

    Says the guy spending all of his spare time on someone else’s blog, refusing to answer questions.

    Again, you debunk your own ideas for us. Thanks.

  46. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah wrote, regarding Alex: “His [sic] been corrected over and over but continues in his ignorance.”

    I responded with: “Is faith responsible for your error above?”

    Hezekiah responds: “No, hunger.”

    I see. Is your hunger a result of faith? How about extreme hunger? How about famine and starvation? Are these too a result of faith?

    And you seemed to have overlooked these questions: “And is faith the ultimate reason “atheists’” are ignorant, Hezekiah? And if we all operate on faith (according to your world view), regardless of whether we know it or not, why does the bible talk about a “lack of faith?” How can somebody sustain his or her life if they lack that which provides the basis for living?”

    Did you blank out on that question? You do realize that your on-air likability and joviality will only buy you so much goodwill, don’t you?

    Hezekiah wrote: “Because if you reject the words of christ you can’t know anything.”

    I responded: “If I reject the words of “christ” [sic] do I know that I’ve rejected the words of Christ?”

    Hezekiah responded: “Yes and No.”

    I wrote: “Yes, I do know I’ve rejected them and no I don’t know I’ve rejected them? Thanks for clearing that up. Doesn’t one need to know about something before one can accept or reject it? I believe you were checkmated by Alex and Jim on the podcast regarding this very question.”

    To this, Hezekiah responded: “You understand what we are telling you. However, you don’t know what we are telling you. If you knew, you would have repented a long time ago.”

    I don’t recall you stating anything about “understanding” in you’re original assertion above. You’re making this up on the fly, aren’t you?

    Be that as it may, how is one able to understand anything without first having knowledge of *some thing*? Remember, you are the one who said one can’t know anything without “christ,” But it seems to me there are lots of things I could not only know without Christ, but would need to know, and in fact *do* know prior to understanding something, including the very words in the bible that inform me about Christ! For example, I would need to know what a car is before I understood how to drive it, wouldn’t I? And I think I would certainly need to know, either implicitly or explicitly, *that* cars exist, before I could even consider driving one, wouldn’t you say?

    Unless you offer some kind of explanation for your convoluted response here, I really do not understand nor do I know how this comes anywhere close to answering my question. In fact, your equivocation with regard to understanding and knowledge only underscores how debilitating the Christ cult can be on someone’s mind, in this case causing them to completely obliterate the hierarchical nature of knowledge.

    It’s too bad I’m unable to experience a little bit of that joviality of yours right now, for that might buy you a little sympathy from me for your inability to explain yourself. Actually, after listening to you again on-air, I still find your disposition likable, in a goofy sort of way, despite your utter inability to make a coherent case. So perhaps I was prescient in tagging you way back when as “The Three Person’s of the Knucklehead.”

    Moving on…

    Hezekiah continued: “That’s enough to leave with you without excuse.”

    Without excuse? Why should such a notion even be discussed under the doctrine you subscribe to? For according to what you believe, I was formed by your god, already built from the beginning “without excuse.” You Christian believers of this particular dogma really ought to revise your doctrine and slogans, changing this one from being “left without excuse” to non-believers being “pre-programmed without excuse and built for hell” — at least then you would be more consistent with what your brainwashers sometimes tell us.

    I then asked Hezekiah: “By the way, how do you account for Christ not relieving the suffering of desert-dwelling people by telling them about and/or providing a cure for Tourrette Syndrome and rabies, and providing them with such miracles as flushing toilets, electricity, and air conditioning? How do you account for that?”

    To these questions, Hezekiah responded with: “The rest of your questions are useless.”

    Useless to whom? Why do you consider them not worthy of being answered? Can you explain that?

    When will you start to make your case?

    Ydemoc

  47. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Ydemoc,

    Without the Christian God you can’t be certain of anything.

    You would have to be aware of things before you attempt to understand and then maybe get to know them. Knowkedge is certain.

    Christ is knowledge.

    Think you are smart here are some questions?

    Why do you exist?

    How do you know you exist?

    Where do you get your certainty from?

    The rest of your questions are useless.

  48. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    How do you think you can convince to believe anything you say?

    Insults and so on are sings of the weak.

    The strong are known by how much truth they can handle.

    What’s wrong can’t handle the truth?

  49. How do you think you can convince to believe anything you say?

    The rest of your questions are useless.

  50. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    And that’s what you have reduced yourself to.

  51. Do you know what “projection” is, Hezekiah?

  52. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    answer the question.

    Why should I believe you over Christ?

    • Wv,

      answer the question.

      Why should I believe you over Christ?
      You answer my first question:

      Is the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds? And if you’re rejecting Christ by saying “no”:, doesn’t this make you (by your own words) without knowledge?

  53. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah wrote: “Christ is knowledge.”

    And non-basketballs are elephants. WTF!?

    You wrote: “Think you are smart here are some questions?”

    The words you’ve strung together are presented in the form of a question, so here are a few replies I thought of:

    No. I don’t think I’m smart here, but elsewhere I’m getting smarter. Are “some questions” what, exactly?

    Or:

    I don’t know if you think I’m smart of not. Are you unsure of some questions?

    Or:

    I don’t know.

    Or, if

    No, when I’m here on this blog, I do not think that I am Maxwell Smart. And “are some questions” what, exactly?

    Or:

    What the hell are you trying to say!?!

    All kidding aside, I will be charitable and just chalk this up as yet another grammatical failure on your part — in this case, neglecting to use the pronoun “You” as well as a failure to place the question mark after “Think you are smart”; and a failure to capitalize “Here,” and mistakenly using a question mark after “questions” instead of using a colon or a period.

    Do you account for such errors by faith? Do you account for such sloppiness by faith? Does the Holy Spirit cause these errors in your understanding and knowledge? Why doesn’t the supernatural assist you grammatically? It remains a mystery, doesn’t it?

    As for the rest of your questions, they (or questions just like them, to the extent they are even valid) have been answered numerous times here, on Justin’s blog, and over on Dawson’s blog. Just because you are able to place a question mark at the end of a bunch of words you have strung together, this does not mean the question is clear, let alone valid — as your own question, “Think you are smart here are some questions?” clearly demonstrates.

    So if you want these questions answered once again, you will have to supply some clarity. For example, when you ask “Why do you exist?” — are you speaking biologically? Or are you asking for the “purpose” of the life I have personally? ; or are you asking that I need some vague, grander purpose for life, other than life itself? If so, you are attempting a major breach — taking the concept “purpose” out of the epistemological and attempting to force it into the metaphysical. Why suppose that life requires any “purpose” above and beyond life itself? Blank out.

    But if this is what you have in mind, I would suggest that it is because (1) your world view has no epistemology at all (how could it, really?), and (2) somewhere along the path in the development of your mind, you failed to recognize that all knowledge is grounded in existence. And instead of recognizing this inescapable fact and always checking your premises (the thoughts of your mind) against what is real, against that which exists, you veered off into the mystical, misusing and neglecting your conceptual faculty in complete surrender to the imaginary.

    In essence, you failed to think. But, hey, you sure are jovial on-air!

    Ydemoc

  54. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Wv,

    That’s been answered. Whatever Christ says stands.

    Ydemoc,

    Another long response filled with irrelevant humor.

    Now, since you don’t why you exist, what you are, and what you are doing in this thing were in. I’ll move on.

    You’re right Knowkedge is based on existence ie God.

    So, what is real?

  55. So it seems that I am going to be the Polytheist of choice for Nide to argue world views with. I accepted over at his blog and it seems we will be doing it on my podcast Evolution of Skepticism, I have opened a comment roll so people can chime in with their questions they would like Nide and I to hear. Please visit this link: http://wp.me/p2gzii-2u if you want to sound off… It’s already turning out to be humorous.

  56. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah asks: “So, what is real?”

    Look out your window. In doing so, you will have affirmed what’s real, that which the axioms explicitly identify. It’s really as simple as that. That’s what knowledge is grounded in; that’s where knowledge begins. Anything thing other-worldly is merely your minds ability to take data supplied to it by the senses, and rearrange it based upon what you wish, not what actually is. A tree is not god, Hezekiah; neither is the Ebola virus, nor a disease-carrying cockroach, which can be seen sometimes when one looks out one’s window. Murder can also be seen. And rape. Is this all evidence of your god? No, they are evidence of what they are. That’s all. Somewhere along the way, you failed to check your premises and you veered off, surrendering your mind to your own imagination and the imagination of others. The result is a jovial personality, but a mind utterly lost in confusion.

    Existence is self-evident.

    By your own words, you affirm this — from your blog, dated 4/18/2012 at 10:45 p.m. time stamp, and I quote: “The self evident needs no proof.”

    One of the more intelligent things you’ve said.

    Now, here’s a little something else you’ve said regarding faith, that it is : ” … the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.” April 21, 2012 – 7:02 p.m.

    I always had an inkling that believers connected “faith” with “fear” — “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge…” Proverbs 1:7, but I’ve never seen the connection made so clearly as you have done with your very own words.

    Is faith “fear,” Hezekiah?

    Can you make your case? You haven’t so far.

    And the only thing really haunting you is your own words.

    Ydemoc

  57. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Ydemoc,

    When I look my window is that real or an appearance?

    Yes, God is certainly self-evident i.e. existence.

    To fear God is to have faith in him.

    Ydemoc how long will you be a fool?

  58. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah writes: “When I look my window is that real or an appearance?”

    The answer is contained within your very question, by virtue of the valid concepts you use to inform it. How can you not see this? Are you that fogged in by faith? Hint: The concept “window,” (as well as all the other concepts you use to inform your question) what are its (their) referents, if not in reality? If the concepts had no tie to reality, then you really wouldn’t be asking me anything, would you? At the very least, you could reformulate your question to (attempt) to take this into account (but even this would only delay the inevitable, since one can’t escape reality, no matter what questions you ask or how they’re reworded.) And if they are concepts with referents in reality, why ask the question in the first place? Blank out.

    Your very question assumes that which you are attempting to question: Reality. You are assuming reality in an attempt to question or undermine reality? This is basically a performative contradiction. Do you get it? Do you see it now? Probably not.

    This is just one of the areas where your world view fails you — where a solid theory of concepts exposes its utter deficiencies for all to see.

    Learn about concept theory and knowledge hierarchy a little more, you know, all that stuff you’ve pooh-poohed. Because in your traveling carnival of apologetics, no one is buying your snake-oil sales pitch.

    Ydemoc

  59. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Ydemoc,

    Wishing doesn’t make it so.

    Have a nice day.

    • Nide, I am now certain that you are one of three things –

      1. an idiot
      2. insane
      3. trolling us all for ‘teh LULZ’

      Which is it?

    • @Ydemoc

      There is little use, he does not understand nor does he wish to understand concept formation and its importance to logic. Further it is very funny to hear the words “wishing does not make it so” coming from a metaphysical subjectivist:) funny indeed.

      • Ydemoc on said:

        Justin wrote: “There is little use, he does not understand nor does he wish to understand concept formation and its importance to logic. ”

        No he really makes no attempt to understand the basis for concepts and the process by which they are formed. He has no understanding that every legitimate concept can be traced back to the perceptual level, or based upon a higher level concept that can be reduced back through the hierarchy to the perceptual level. And what lies at the perceptual level? Gee, it certainly cannot be the imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible, can it? Why no, that would be a complete contradiction, wouldn’t it? Of course it would!

        Yet this is what he claims to be the root of his world view: One cannot have knowledge without his god, an alleged entity which is imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible. In other words, he is actually maintaining that a contradiction is the basis for his knowledge, it is at the ground floor of his world view. But contradictions do not exist, do they? Of course not. Since they don’t exist, neither does his so-called basis for knowledge. To put it another way, he is telling us that absolutely nothing at all is his basis for knowledge. Every time he asserts that without his god there would be no knowledge, he is actually saying that without the non-existent, there would be no knowledge. He is saying that the non-existent is the basis for his knowledge. Meaning: He has no basis. But how does he deal with this, how does he fill this vacuum of this non-existence? The only way one can: With his imagination!

        You wrote: “Further it is very funny to hear the words “wishing does not make it so” coming from a metaphysical subjectivist:) funny indeed.”

        Yep. Another inconsistency a mind that has failed to check its premises.

        Ydemoc

  60. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Alex,

    What did people say about Christ?

  61. No one knows, as we have zero eye witness accounts of his supposed life.

    So which are you? 1, 2, or 3?

  62. Ydemoc on said:

    Hezekiah wrote: “Yes, God is certainly self-evident i.e. existence.”

    (1) Please make the case for me that the imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible can in any coherent way be said to be directly perceptible, detectable, and visible.

    2) Please make the case for me that the imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible, i.e., that which cannot be directly perceived, detected, nor seen, can in any coherent way be said to be “self-evident”?

    3) Please explain and justify the unavoidable view that you must now assume (given your above claim that your god is self-evident, i.e., it is existence) that this imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible entity is not only self-evident, but is self-evident in each and every case of cancer, the Ebola Virus, Rabies, Spina Bifida, fly feces, cockroaches, intestinal bacteria, rape, murder, horseshit, anal fissures, every cell in the Twin Towers killers’ bodies, HIV, etc. — and please do so without inference from other attributes, since that would not be something that would be self-evident.

    4) Should you travel down the road of your asserting imagined attributes for this “being” you worship in an attempt to cite those as “self-evidential” of your god , please make the case for me in any coherent way how it is that an imperceptible, undetectable, invisible entity can be said to have any perceptible, detectable, and visible attributes whatsoever?

    5) Should you deny your god has attributes, and assert instead that your god encompasses all attributes, please make the case for me how this makes any sense. For example, if your god is life, is your god also death? If your god is truth, is it also a lie? (this is not the same as asking if your god “can lie;” I’m asking if your god *is* a lie — it’s interesting though that one of the attributes you and your storybook assigns to your god is that it cannot lie) If your god is power, is it also non-power? If your god is a man, is it also a woman? If your god is strong, is it also weak? If your god is a basketball, is it also an elephant? If your god has knowledge, is it also dumb? If you’re god is “everything,” as you claim it is by virtue of your saying it is “existence”, it would have to include all these things, so please make a coherent case for me.

    Good luck. Try to be jovial in your reply. We all know you can if you really try.

    Ydemoc

  63. Hezekiah Ahaz on said:

    Alex,

    None, dynamite.

    Ydemoc,

    You had your chance to shine. You got an F for failure.

    Have a nice day.

    • No, that’s not how it works – you are CLEARLY, SELF EVIDENTLY one of the three –

      Idiot, insane, or troll – which is it?

      • I’ve come to the conclusion that I am no longer under any intellectual burden to treat people like Hezekiah seriously.

        I’ve always tried to do so, even though I saw signs that they would not be returning the favor. For example, in order to reveal some kind of inconsistency in their beliefs, I must first suppose (hypothetically) that God wrote the Bible, or that Jesus actually existed, or that sin is something I should avoid.

        I think I’m done granting them the courtesy of treating them with respect.

        Fuck off, Hezekiah. You’ll die having spent a good chunk of your life believing in total nonsense, and urging that others need to believe similarly. You only get one life, and to waste so much of it when you could be discovering things you never imagined possible – it’s the kind of realization that turns normal people suicidal.

        That’s on your head. Good luck getting over it.

      • Ydemoc on said:

        Not that his world view needs to be discredited by default — Christianity, and theism in general, loses no matter what it’s defenders serve up, and quite easily, actually. That being said, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a defender of his faith lose by default so many times as Hezekiah has. Questions are posed to him, and he doesn’t answer. When he does answer, he doesn’t explain. When he tries to explain, most of the time, he makes little sense. And ’round and ’round we go.

        But I really enjoyed this thread and crafting my replies. They will come in quite handy whenever I have to deal with the Calvinists like him that happen to be in my family.

        Stay jovial, Hezekiah!

        Ydemoc

    • Nide: In lieu of the $500 you owe me by virtue of my asking for that amount via invoking Matthew 5:42, would you instead arrange for a MRI scan of your brain and then post it online so we can see if there are any abnormalities in your brain tissues?

  64. Direct quote from Hezekiah on his blog

    “You gotta get rid of logic…..it’s sickening”

    • He really doesn’t care what he says or writes, as long as it draws people towards his world view.

      In this sense, he’s the epitome of an untrustworthy person. He can be counted on to be unprincipled and dishonest, simply because these things are necessary in “supporting a worldview at any cost”.

      Hezekiah is the kind of guy who’s first in line to stone non-virgin brides.

    • Would Nide have assisted Calvin and Fontaine’s buddies in burning Michael Servetus?

  65. I’m voting for 3)Troll. This means you can ban/ignore him. The kid just isn’t that smart, regardless of whether or not he is sincere. Even so, you and Jim did provide some LULZ on the episode #47, especially with the long pauses. I filled them with “What the fuck?”. The whole thing reminded me of this Kids in the Hall sketch.

  66. @Hezekiah Ahaz on April 29, 2012 at 6:03 pm said:
    Ydemoc,

    “atheist” are ignorant that’s why.

    Ignorant means:

    1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
    2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
    3. uninformed; unaware.
    4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

    knowledge means:

    1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
    2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
    3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
    4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
    5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

    Nide: to say that someone is lacking in knowledge is to admit that knowledge is possible, for only by empirically comparing the state of awareness of the person you were insulting with some standard by which to judge could you ascertain they lacked knowledge. Thus by admitting knowledge you admit to existence of an external world from which those you insult are empirically aware of facts. Rather than insult your opponents you should quote scripture at them.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: