Have you Christians out there actually READ this book? – Part II

A continuation of: Have you Christians out there actually READ this book?

Stephen:
I let you get away with a lot in your first post. I even let you get away with calling me “Satan”. I was very forgiving and accommodating, but this time you have just gone too far.

James:
Please point out the sentence where I called you Satan. You won’t be able to find it because I did no such thing. Incidentally, if you can so carelessly misrepresent my arguments as you have manifestly done in this post, then how do you know that you are not misrepresenting the bible as I maintain that you have been doing all along?

Stephen:
Your implication that atheists are utterly lacking in logic and deductive reasoning skills is so bizarre and contrary to the facts that it is impossible for me to let this slide. I cannot and I will not forgive you for this.

James:
A Straw man is a `red herring’ type of logical fallacy. As the “straw man” metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument (in this case, the lie or misapprehension that I called you Satan or that I suggested “that atheists are utterly lacking in logic and deductive reasoning skills”) is typically weaker than the opponent’s actual position (i.e. atheist cannot account for logic in their worldview), just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the Straw man fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument.

Stephen:
In your first post you were kinda/sorta polite (despite calling me Satan), but your latest post is a smear, an insult and an assault on reason itself. Typically atheists are more logical and have better deductive reasoning skills than Christians. You have done an EXCELLENT job of proving that in your posts to me.

James:
And of course you know that “[t]ypically atheists are more logical and have better deductive reasoning skills than Christians” because you have interviewed all of the Atheists and Christians that have ever lived and that are presently living and also those that will in the future, then you derived this assertion from a completed induction; um probably not. As I have maintained throughout our dialogue, even atheists use logic and therefore they are rational (or at least they have the potential for rationality) but they cannot account for the reality of logic within their worldview.

Stephen:
As a logical person I can read the words “tree of knowledge of good and evil” and I think “tree of knowledge of good and evil”. You as an illogical person read the words “tree of knowledge of good and evil” and think “apple tree” or “fig tree” or maybe you just draw a blank.

James:
Well since I have never in our dialogue mentioned the things that you attribute to me, then I take it that you must think that you are a mind-reader; and of course, if you do think so, then perhaps you have got bigger problems than I previously thought.

Stephen:
You have the same problem when you read the words “tree of life” As a logical person I read the words and their meaning is quite plain and straightforward and understandable. As an illogical person you read the words and you go through exhaustive mental gymnastics in an effort to keep the words from meaning what they actually mean. The Tree of Life does not mean the tree of life, because if it did then that would mean Adam and Eve were not really immortal and you with your mental flaws cannot admit that.

James:
As I mentioned in my previous post, the bible clearly indicates that death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12) ; therefore, since sin did not exist in the world until after Adam and Eve disobeyed God then it follows by good and necessary consequence that Adam and Eve were not subject to death until after they had disobeyed God. Not surprisingly, this interpretation fits naturally with the observation that when God warned Adam that he would die if he ate the fruit, Adam didn’t respond by saying: “Why should I be concerned about dying since I am already mortal?”. Once again, God’s admonition is no longer a deterrent if Adam and Eve were already going to die. You, Stephen, instead take the most unlikely scenario (i.e. Adam and Eve were mortal before the Fall and thus God is lying in Romans 5:12) and insist that it must be so despite the irresistible force of logic that has been on display since we began our dialogue.

Stephen:
The Tree of knowledge of good and evil doesn’t actually mean the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because if it did that would mean that Adam and Eve were created WITHOUT the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. And you with your obvious psychological flaws cannot admit that.

James:
As I have mentioned earlier, your conclusion (Adam and Eve were created WITHOUT the knowledge of what is good and what is evil) does not follow from the premise (The Tree of knowledge of good and evil actually means the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) that you posit so your argument fails. Go back and read my comments about why Adam and Eve had SOME knowledge of good and evil despite the fact that they had not yet partook of the Tree of the knowledge of good and Evil. As the christian philosopher Dr. Thomas Robbins once said “A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms.” It is furtherly thus impossible that Adam and Eve had no knowledge whatsoever of good and evil. I’m suggesting that their quantity of the knowledge of good and evil dramatically increased once they partook of the forbidden fruit. Without further revelation from God, it is impossible to quantitatively know how much knowledge was added but we have solid indications to believe that the addition was dramatic.

Stephen:
And yet while YOU enthusiastically engage in these exercises to run away from logical conclusions and avoid deductive reasoning, you DARE to accuse atheists of being the ones who are lacking in logic and deductive reasoning skills!! I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.

James:
I’m not here to be provoked by your baseless accusations. I honestly want to know how atheists can account for logic or morality in an atheistic worldview? The laws of logic are immaterial – how do you account for the immaterial in your worldview? How do you account for universal or absolute abstractions in your solely corporeal worldview? These are not insults – merely honest questions that may sound rhetorical but are only so because you do not have an answer that can withstand the scrutiny of logic.

Stephen:
You can believe in talking snakes and the dead rising from the grave and Moses parting the Red Sea and all of the water in Egypt being turned into blood, however you CANNOT embrace all these fantasies and at the same time take those of us who believe in science and accuse US of being the illogical ones! I’ve had it with you. Take your love of irrationality and go away. I’m not wasting any more of my time on you.

James:
In a world where one cannot account for logic or morality (i.e. in your worldview), I’m not sure why these things you mention (even if I were to assume them to be fantasies) are problematic since a person can both lie and be irrational in your worldview without being held accountable to a universal and invariant standard that would make such actions “wrong.”

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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