Two Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door...

Post Reply New Topic

Ben Stein used "Pop-Corn" polemics, for instance:

Why ruin it for true believers? Well, since this forum mentions Jehovah Witnesses, my speech problems often placed me in the small group labeled "ret*ds", and the God Fearing normals would throw rocks at me and the kids believing with Jehovah Witnesses. During the holiday parties, not recognizing and not speaking to "Santa Claus" was an act deserving punishment because such an act upset the class meeting with Santa Claus for everyone. Ben Stein used this type of argument. The count of non-believers being small meant Santa Claus was true!! !

In the book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" by Richard P. Feynman (1985), in the chapter entitled "Uncle Sam Doesn't Need You", pages 156-163, on page 160 is the "Random Rating Runaround" game hiding with rankless numbers: "How much do you value life?", "64", "Why 64?", "How are you SUPPOSED to measure the value of life?", "No! I mean, why did you say 'sixty-four', and not 'seventy-three,' for instance?", "If I had said 73, you would have asked me the same question!" Hence, any challenge to psychiatry as not being a science, means the arbitrary number valuation in any rating are taken as bad. Ben Stein used this faulty line of reasoning.

A moibus strip has only one-side, so where does the other side start? This "begining" polemic is used by Ben Stein.

Bertrand Russell notes in his book "Human Knowledge: Its Scope & Limits" (), page 94, it is noted: "For this reason, REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM is a form of argument that is repugnant to those who are not familiar with logic or mathematics; if the hypothesis is going to be proved false, they cannot make themselves hypothetically entertain it."..."If you say 'let us suppose so-and-so and see what comes of the supposition,' they will tend either to believe what you suppose, or to think you are wasting your time." Ben Stein confounded the "suppose" with the "believe", and since Ben Stein is a well educated person, this "mistake" was probably intentional for the polemical effect on swaying anyone in the audience careless or not well educated enough to catch it.

The Ben Stein's phantasms of characteristics of hypotheticals with any presupposed large number of supernaturals, means endless opportunities for non-closure in polemics upon any of the very slightest acknowledgement of the stated nonsense.

The worded cartoon version of Pascal's Wager is then attempted to be foisted by Ben Stein.

Then the polemic of, anybody not believing, violates the rights of freedom to believe of believers.

Being warm and Fuzzy, with a dash of "serious" humor, as polemicists, doesn't help make their arguments more valid and objective. In fact, such theatrics devalue the validity and objectivity of a posited argument. (Like proving geometry with warm and fuzzy nonsense: "Equilateral triangles justly share their degrees, so therefore, we know they care enough to share their lengths".)

The language of the telegraph link makes it sound like any debate requires the pre-acceptance of Casper the Friendly Ghost, and such pre-requirements of prior agreement is like the "logic", that since a person uses the Gregorian Calendar, they must agree with Pope Gregory XIII entirely. (I got a similar set of polemics going to grade school in Utah). A military case about 25 years ago involved a Kippah being required to be removed before a military board would consider any contest of whether any Kippah be allowed in front of them. Doing such with issues of science versus required "non-materialism" of Christian apologetics is an absurd requirement for science. Not saying "Bless You" is disrespectful too, to any already-know-all-the-answers Polyannas!! !

Also, hexagonal lava tubes don't prove a divine creator, nor smart volcanoes, even if they are labeled for "The Devil".

Tadzio

that is my point: most creationist claims are untestable and are therefore outside the realm of science. Those few peripheral claims that can be tested have been falsified, so the creationist position is not something that can be backed up by any scientific evidence. Still, most creationists are grossly misinformed about this. Most of them have no clue about how much evidence exists for evolution, of so many different types, or that these different types of evidence sometimes corroborate each other in stunning fashion.

It really is no exaggeration to say that there is at least as much evidence humans share common ancestry with chimpanzees (for example) as there is evidence for the earth going around the sun. Even Michael Behe (author of Darwin's Black Box and other intelligent design books) concedes this is true. It really is that obvious, and that is why Dawkins and others get so frustrated trying to talk to people who are so incredibly misinformed about this subject. It's like trying to discuss the shape of the earth with somebody who insists the earth flat and wants to "teach the controversy." It is very frustrating and basically pointless to try to reason with someone who denies verifiable reality. As someone else pointed out in this thread, the only possible purposes are to hone one's debating skills and possibly convince fence-sitters to choose one side or the other.

As for AngelRho's discussion of how the mathematical odds are against protein formation, that is silly. It happened, so the odds are 100% that it happened. He may be quoting some creationist and ID sources that use the structures of two different existing proteins and then compute the odds of one transforming into the other. This is the "cousin" fallacy. It is like trying to compute the odds against you being descended from your cousin without considering the common ancestry of grandparents or earlier proteins. Another statistical fallacy creationists frequently use is to assume that all the changes have to happen at once, instead of realizing that evolution happens in steps.

The bottom line is that ALL the evidence we can observe of every type we can measure supports the idea of evolution, and NO evidence we have yet found falsifies it. The genetics, fossil record, geographical distribution, and morphology of species (to name just a few types of evidence) all show the same pattern of life evolving and diversifying. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant of the evidence, too stupid to understand it, insane, or possibly wicked. I don't see any other possibilities UNLESS God is a trickster who planted all this false evidence to deceive us. But that is not a God I would want to believe in.

^^^^^^

I can sympathize with just about everything you just said. I can understand getting upset with a creationist, I have been there. I have argued against ID advocates in the past and it can be like banging one's head against a wall. Dawkins and others like him do not however stop with just the creationists. He is not so selective in his frustrations, instead he simply labels all believers together; Ken Ham is thrown in with Archbishop Romero and all are labeled backward possessing beliefs that are backward and contemptible at best; outright dangerous at worst.

So I find men like Dawkins worrying. It was actually the interlectual attacks and condescension of the new atheists that drove me to dust off my philosophy textbooks respond with argument. Their blatent attempt to sanity their prejudices with science and claim the interlectual high ground only really became an issue for me when I was subjected to their constant barrages on campus. Having been an atheist I figured it was time to become informed with regards to natural theology, philosophy and the new atheism. I read all their books, found them interlectually vacuous and then started reading the work of the theistic philosophers; Augustine, Aquinas, Plantinga and Craig etc.

What I find frustrating now is the number of atheists taken in by Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. Their work is second grade nonsense (Dawkin's central argument is blatently invalid) but some atheists seem keen to believe it. No matter how many times you go through their arguments, they still believe it. Despite the fact that there has been a revolution in theistic philosophy many atheists remain ignorant, often willfully so, of the fact that many of their best arguments have been debunked. I suppose one who suffers from the pigheadedness of creationists can sympathize frustration at the ignorance of the new atheists.

I think a lot of atheists sometimes forget that they're susceptible to the same sort of brainwashing and fact-twisting as any creationist because they often think of themselves, if not intellectually superior, at least more resistant to believing nonsense. I find that a sizable portion of atheists are as blind to dishonest rebuttals and regurgitated slogans as any fundamentalist.

I don't know much about Dawkins or Hitchens (never heard of Harris, I think) all I know is that they're highly regarded in most atheist circles and almost revered in some. Now, I think anyone raised to a pedestal by a movement with a clear purpose can become dangerous. I don't know if this is the case here, but I worry that one day it might be. If atheists wish to cling to science as their beacon of reason, then I hope they'll remember to uphold it's methods, especially when it comes to supposed leaders.

When we stand together as one we're stronger against opposition and impregnable to reason. There's nothing quite as stupid as a group of humans.

There isn't really a presumption of naturalism in science if you push things to an extreme.

There is always a presumption of empiricism though.

If an omnipotent supernatural being did exist he could prove it easily by rearranging the stars in the night sky to spell out his name.

Unfortunately for the faithful, all tests of 'miraculous action' turn out to be false.

Just as all tests of people claiming psychic ability turn out to be fraudulent. Not a single claim of supernatural power or action has ever been demonstrated under controlled conditions even though a supernatural powerful being would be easily capable of doing so repeatedly under test conditions.

Funnily enough after centuries of testing, scientists are somewhat sceptical of supernatural claims. If you can prove it, go ahead and science will accept it. Every single other person in history that has claimed that has come up lacking and been shown up as a fraud and charlatan though.

I think you are right with regards to empiricism in science. There are however movements like the Brights that push for a blatant assumption of absolute naturalism with regards to research. I personally don't think science can be used to argue for the existence of God. I do however think that science can discover facts that can be used in support of a premise within an argument that argues for the existence of God; moving the question into the realms of philosophy.

As to miracles I don't limit the miraculous to that which occurs outside of the explanatory power of natural science. Anyone who has seen Earth from space or newborn children can appreciate that sort of miracle. There are however things that legitimately defy the best efforts of an explanation. I personally find the naturalistic explanations for the Mircale of the Sun to be insufficient. Further I think a good historical case for the resurrection of Christ can be made.

Two Jehovah's Witnesses once came to my door and I told them to f**k right off. Saved me a lot of time and brainpower. They weren't supposed to be in my goddamn backyard anyways.

Congrats, you have answered correctly!

lol I'm normally a lot more polite but since they decided it would be a good idea to come into my backyard without my permission and ignore the "Beware of dog" sign, I didn't take too kindly to that.

@91: Which of Dawkins' arguments do you think is 'central'?

The one he calls "the central argument of my book" it is on pg 157-58 of the God Delusion.

I'm at work; my copy of that book is at home. Please paraphrase.

Well in point three he invokes regress thereby violating the rules of inference. His conclusion that God does not exist does not follow from his premises. John Lennox I think accurately summed it up as a 'schoolboy argument'. Commonsenseatheism calls it 'Richard Dawkins and Naive Atheism.' and dismisses their poster dismisses the argument 'I think it is worthwhile for theists and atheists alike to debunk such naive arguments so that we can focus instead on the merits of good arguments for and against theism.'

Here is a good series of posts about it on commonsenseatheism

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6081

Where is Tadzio to complain about how I link to all those pro-Christian websites.

You're right that it does not prove the non-existence of any gods, but it does point out the silliness of the creationist argument that 'everything must have a creator.'

To elaborate, once you accept the idea of an 'uncaused cause,' which is more likely: one which is infinitely complex, or one which starts out simple and becomes complex?

Dawkins' argument makes a god both unnecessary and unlikely.

Okay, I can put a very close perspective on this. I am a Fundamentalist-Mormon and am in no way related to mainstream Mormonism, but I was a mainstream Mormon for 28 years out of my 33 years of life thus far. This point being made.....

The fact is the idea of missionaries is biblical, so I would discount not religions that have missionaries but those that have none.

Secondly, God always used Prophets and Apostles and still does, as God is the same yesterday, today and forever, His ways don't change and the officers of His Priesthood do not either.

This being said, if you want to be strictly Biblical from a Christian point of view and not from the point of view of our Jewish brethren, then we must consider only the religions of the Christian world that still claim to have Prophets and Apostles. Said religions in the Christian world are few and far between. Sure, there are mainstream Mormons ( who don't follow or even know their own doctrine very well generally, but with some exceptions,) there are Fundamentalist- Mormons, and there are the rare Southern Baptist preachers who call themselves Apostles ( in recognition that there must always be Prophets and Apostles,) and of course the generically titled, self styled, "Fundamentalist-Christians."

Your use of scripture is all well and good, but realize many religions who call themselves Christian use those verses and as there is only one true redeemer of this world there is only one true gospel.

If any these different gospels teach the same verses of scripture you mentioned, you must ask yourself which if any of those gospels are correct.

With me, I follow the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew of the coming of The Savior and so I follow the Savior Jesus Christ who preached many great things and of course truth, who also preached that in order to receive of the blessings God promised Father Abraham we must do the works of Abraham.

Now as pertaining to the young missionaries, the simple truth is God never intended for young, inexperienced, and often immature men to preach anything. God has always used men of experience and maturity who filled certain offices within the Holy Priesthood.

Even within the mainstream Mormon world to send out these young men to preach is against the mainstream LDS ( Mormon ) doctrine. The LDS have a book called Doctrine and Covenants ( D& C.) The D&C outline precisely the doctrines and covenants that LDS people are supposed to observe. In the book of D&C it states that the young men in question ( of whom you were speaking ) are not under any responsibility to go unto all the world and preach. That job is the responsibility of others ( whom mainstreamers and Fundamentalist-Mormons alike call "Seventies" and "The Twelve;" at least we refer to them that way usually.)

About those "two weird" girls you mentioned, technically, it is 100% against LDS doctrine to have "sister missionaries." Yet, the church has given up it's D&C in order to appease the women of the church and the world at large.

The simple truth is, only Priesthood of appropriate level have any business speaking in God's name ( for none others even have authority to speak in His name to begin with.) And yes, I know I ended the sentence with incorrect grammar, but I have no intention of re-wording everything.

Oh, and you called those girls "weird?" Kinda funny that you choose to call them that when you are an Aspie and are called weird by others!? Persecuting others different than you is unbecoming.

So from one Aspie brother to another, these are my thoughts. I recognize that we all believe differently and hope that whether you agree with me or not, I ask that you not join in with persecuting others, especially when you know absolutely nothing about them.

Respectfully, I await your response should you choose to offer any thoughts so we may continue this discussion if we both so wish it.