Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What Must We Do In the Face of Insane Denial?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the combox to a prior post KF brought this article to my attention:

On the Nature of Debate, Denial and Refutation by Robert L. Kocher.

It could not have come at a better time. In the past few weeks I have noticed an increase in plain old irrationality from our opponents. You catch them in outright falsehoods; they do not acknowledge it. They just spew out another comment. You catch them in a contradiction; again, they ignore it and act as if there was no contradiction and you did not catch them. You state a self-evident fact. They deny it.

Quite honestly, they have begun to wear me down. It turns out I am not alone. Kocher writes:

It is a fact of life that you cannot win an argument with someone who is not sane. Sane bystanders may come to agree with your presentation, but you have no way of convincing someone who is not sane of anything. . . suppose that I say that the red pen I happen to have in my hand at this moment is a red pen. Further suppose that someone else says it is not a red pen, but is instead a flower pot, or a suitcase or a TV set. As a practical matter, I am unable to refute the assertion that what I am holding in my hand is not a flower pot. That does not mean that I’m incorrect when I say that it is a red pen. Nor does it mean that I am intellectually weaker than the other person who is arguing that it is not a red pen. Nor does it mean that his assertion that it is not a red pen is correct.

It means that I have no stronger argument than the red pen being in my hand. There is no stronger argument possible than the simple fact of the red pen being in my hand. No stronger refutation of the other person’s arguments is possible. At some point there must be agreement on what constitutes basic reality.

What if there is no such agreement?

The resolution of differing assertions, if there is to be one, will not be on the basis of intellectual reasoning or investigation, but on the basis of resolving a severe mental disorder. . . . If there is intractable disinclination, no resolution is possible.

I say the Holocaust is objectively evil. Learned Hand says that the Holocaust is not objectively evil and that the only thing he can say about it is that he does not prefer Holocausts and that he subjectively believes his preference in that regard is superior to the contrary Nazi preference (by which he means that he personally prefers his preference over the Nazi preference).

Learned Hand is saying that the red pen in my hand is a flower pot. We have a fundamental disagreement about basic reality. His view is literally insane. But I cannot hope to convince him of his insanity any more than I could hope to convince him that the red pen in my hand is a red pen and not a flower pot.

I have no stronger argument that the Holocaust was objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that murdering 18 million innocent men, women and children is objectively evil. LH either accepts that or he does not. And if he does not he is insane or evil or both. And the most I can hope for is to convince the lurkers.

At the end of the day Learned Hand is saying that evil does not exist. He is saying that some people prefer murder and other people do not, and the practical difference between the two groups is not whose preference is objectively superior (because he says there is no standard by which to measure which preference is objectively superior) but who is stronger. Might makes right.

Within the borderline psychotic liberalism of the past several decades, the various forms of irrefutability have come to have intellectual equivalence. Mental disorder and psychotic levels of denial have come to have a certified validity because of their irrefutability–even to the point of being misinterpreted as being a powerful form of intellectuality.

LH’s denial of the existence of objective evil is, in a sense, irrefutable. “Consider the Holocaust; consider torturing an infant for pleasure,” I plead. LH says he personally does not prefer either of those things, but he denies that either is objectively evil, because he says there is no such thing. “Borderline psychotic liberalism” is a good description of this attitude.

It has become common for people who routinely engage in chronic psychotic levels of denial to consider themselves as being mental powerhouses, and to be considered by others as being mental powerhouses, because no one can break through their irrationality. This is often supported by a self-referencing congratulatory inner voice which says, “(guffaw) He REALLY didn’t have an answer for that one!” And they are correct. He didn’t have an answer.

It really is the case that I have no answer for the denial of the existence of objective evil other than to point to self-evidently evil acts. If denial persists, I have no answer any more than I would have an answer if LH were to say “You are holding a flower pot” other than to respond “My God man, look at it; it’s a red pen, not a flower pot.”

I have spent a large proportion of time in a state of near stammering rage arguing with people, especially leftists, who consider themselves intellectual powerhouses in vain attempts to obtain at least minor degree of acceptance or agreement on what constitutes basic reality.

I know the feeling all too well.

But, observable basic reality does not make a dent in countering the psychotic arguments underwriting the chaotic consequences which are occurring. No matter how airtight the refutation, the talk continues. No matter how inane the talk, the issue is still considered unresolved. Capacity to continue speaking has become looked upon as a form of refutation of absolute real-world evidence.

How many times when I’ve been arguing with Zachriel, Popperian, LH, eigenstate, or seversky have I caught them out in an obvious falsehood or contradiction, only to have them move on as if nothing happened? It really is the case, it seems, that they believe “valid argument” means the same thing as “the ability to keep typing.”

Not long ago I read a book review in Commentary magazine. While the reviewer seemed somewhat sympathetic to the points made in the book, he complained that the book author consistently referred to his adversaries as idiots. The reviewer criticized the book author on the basis that calling people nuts or idiots is not intellectual content or intellectual refutation. The reviewer was absolutely incorrect. It is profound intellectual content. It is shorthand for the valid and important observation that the content of certain positions is a form of mental disorder for which no intellectual refutation is possible.

I have used the word “idiot” several times in recent weeks. When someone denies that it is evil to chop little boys and girls into pieces and sell the pieces like meat, it is the kindest word I can think of.

What is a sane person to do when the whole world seems to be going mad? Kocher offers some advice:

. . . the individual in this situation must maintain confidence in reality and final confidence in himself in stating reality. In other words, there comes a point where the only and final argument is, “That’s the way the real world operates, and that’s the way it is.” Many of us who are graduates of diseased liberal educational systems have been brainwashed into accepting the undermining belief that if we don’t have a refutation that satisfies people holding an irrational position, then according to what we are told are the rules of liberal intellectuality we should be morally or ethically bound to adopt that irrational position or be labeled irrational or anti-intellectual. This leads to the inverted condition of feeling guilty or irrational for not adopting wholesale mental disorder. . . .

anyone representing sanity or seeking to hold on to their sanity today must possess emotional ruggedness. It means being subjected to constant temper tantrums. Agreement is not to be expected regardless of the correctness of your position. In many cases the only refutation to the opposing argument is to look at the world around you as evidence.

I will need to work on emotional ruggedness. I freely admitted last week, for example, that Zachriel’s insanity had worn me to a nub, and I needed a rest. But I am fairly well anchored on reality, and with Martin Luther I declare, “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”

Comments
Popperian's point stands. Christian morality is being presented as the only legitimate authority on such questions. Yet the only documentary source for that authority is riddled with episodes which directly contradict those alleged moral imperatives. Much cleverer people than I have recognized that long ago, which is why apologetics is such a thriving field in Christian scholarship, as evidenced by our own VJT. There is a lot there that needs explaining and justifying. Until those questions are resolved, Christian claims concerning moral issues stand on shaky ground.Seversky
August 31, 2015
August
08
Aug
31
31
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PST
Barry:
How many times when I’ve been arguing with Zachriel, Popperian, LH, eigenstate, or seversky have I caught them out in an obvious falsehood or contradiction, only to have them move on as if nothing happened? It really is the case, it seems, that they believe “valid argument” means the same thing as “the ability to keep typing.”
It seems we've recached the point were Barry does't even bother quoting me at all when he abandons a thread and starts another. I guess I'll have to do it for him.
I wrote:
Specially, it’s unclear how, Barry, or anyone else for that matter, has any other recourse but to conjecture solutions to moral problems an criticize them.
Barry:
Correction, you have stubbornly resisted correction. Not the same thing Pop, not the same thing.
I wrote:
I have? Then you should have no problem pointing me to the means by which you can infallible identify an infallible source of morality and interpret it infallibly. Show me the error of my ways!
Still waiting.... Yet another comment.
Barry:
Does your moral theory compel you unambiguously to condemn the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat? [If no, then] your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.
I wrote:
First, "unambiguous" means, not being open to more than one interpretation. However, I've been pointing out problem with just that assumption. So, let me fix that for you.
Does your moral theory compel you - though the infallible identification and interpretation of an infallible source of moral principles - the practice of chopping little boys and girls up and selling the pieces like so much meat? [If no, then] your your moral theory is as worthless as a fresh steaming pile of dog feces.
One such illustration...
However, the very same arguments one could use to “justify” God demanding the death women and their unborn children by the sword could be used to “justify” the actions of abortionists.
For example, if a women is evil enough to want their child to die, then one could argue that their child’s death would be God’s punishment for her evil. And being raised in such a family, such a child would have just been evil as well. IOW, it’s unclear how you could know that God isn’t just using abortionists as a “surgeon” to “cut out” evil that exceeded some limit that we cannot comprehend.
Are you saying we can unambiguously rule this out? If so how?
Still unaddressed. And I'm acting like nothing happened?Popperian
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PST
Learned Hand said that he thought abortion was illegal in the U.S. "after viability". Additionally, someone (it may have been him) said that since we don't know precisely when an infant in the womb is viable, we can't speak about the morality of abortion. On that point, it's the general rule for the deer hunter in the woods. He sees something over there. "It might be a deer, or it could be a human being". What does the rule say? Obviously, if it "might be a human" then we are not permitted, morally, to fire the gun. To kill what "might be a human baby" is taking that same risk -- a willingness to potentially kill someone. On the other point regarding legality. I took a look at legislation regarding partial birth abortion. I don't know how much more obvious it can get. These are cases where the child is killed while it is in the process of birth. It has actually happened after birth by abortionists who failed their gruesome task in the womb. A law was finally signed in 2003, forbidding partial birth abortion. Learned Hand seemed to claim that liberals generally did not support abortion at any time during pregnancy. Really? Who do we think was fighting in favor of the then-current, legal practice of partial birth abortion? Do you think Planned Parenthood wanted it forbidden? Additionally, that common-sense law was actually challenged in court later in 2007. So again, there is significant group of people in the population who think that babies can be legally killed while they're actually being born. These are not ambiguous cases. But it also tells us that anything "pre-partial birth" remains legal in any place that has decided such. When we talk about cruelty and evil and holocaust -- those words are appropriate. The public has been blinded and numbed to this issue. Notice that the Planned Parenthood videos have not created the massive discussion or media focus as they obviously should have. The US government actually voted to continue half a billion dollar a year funding of this organization. A farm shown to have caused harm to baby chickens or other animals would have come under intense scrutiny and would have been fined or closed. Even an individual who hurt a little dog would have been berated. But the public is obviously blind on this issue. Someone else also mentioned "empathy" as the reason why we do good things. There's no empathy for innocent babies who are routinely killed this way? Obviously, a person's conscience can be deadened over time.Silver Asiatic
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PST
Thank you very much for those links, KF. I'll try my best to read it all, though I'm always chasing the clock.Axel
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PST
I think Zacharie is a computer. His arguments and logic are highly repetitive. I ignore him because he never says anything new.Peter
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST
anyone representing sanity or seeking to hold on to their sanity today must possess emotional ruggedness. It means being subjected to constant temper tantrums. Agreement is not to be expected regardless of the correctness of your position. In many cases the only refutation to the opposing argument is to look at the world around you as evidence.
You can always pull the reverse of their own "that's just silly" refutation, as in "believing the holocaust is not evil is way not cool"awstar
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST
WJM, for years I knew this was a great evil, but having said my piece occasionally felt, that is a front that is so dominated by a contrary message that at best it was a hold. I forgot to reckon with the full force of corrupting bloodguilt. Those vids and pictures woke me up bigtime, to what is now the worst holocaust of all time. And, BA77's clip on rates and numbers have made me a lot more confident in the quality of the numbers I saw years ago and was too shaken to take seriously without serious back-up. It's not just American numbers and a vague global total, simply multiply 40 - 50 mn per year by 40 years, even with allowance for lower pop no's 40 years back. Hundreds of millions are staring at you, many hundreds. Our civilisation, me included [I should have realised much earlier . . . ], is guilty, guilty, guilty. KFkairosfocus
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PST
Axel, the dechristianising tidal wave sweeping our civilisation is certainly a great apostasy, a blend of atheistical evolutionary materialist scientism, selectively hyperskeptical radical secularism, and fellow travellers in neo-pagan and post-christian [save, occasionally by name] movements and captured or hostage institutions. To all such, I say, start with what our inner life and outer world say about our world and its roots and also what the evidence of the 500 and the eyewitness lifetime record, multiplied by 2,000 years of life transformaton have to say to us, cf: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu and: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds (You may want to read the two pages from the top.) I think that is enough for a fresh beginning. KFkairosfocus
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PST
Mr. Arrington @10, I did serious mental/spiritual harm to myself in my atheist/materialist years because I was not a lip-service a-mat; I was a rationally consistent a-mat and I lived that way. I'm still trying to recover and learn - and a great example of this site still providing me the tools has been reading the reasoned debates offered up about abortion. Just a few months ago it was my position that abortion should be legal, even though it was immoral, for the same reasons that I held that other things like prostitution and personal drug use should be legal, even if they were harmful for those that engaged in them. However, I've realized I had fallen for a contextualization deception, much like the article I linked to in my OP today talks about. Abortion is not a "women's rights" issue; it's not a "women's health" issue. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as defining terms for the debate are horribly misleading. None of us have total, absolute rights to do whatever we wish with our bodies, especially if what we do with our bodies infringes on the rights of others. The abortion debate is simply about whether or not a woman has the right to kill the human fetus she is carrying. One group insists she has an unlimited right to do so as long as the baby/fetus can be defined as still being inside her body; the other group argues at the least that any such "right" is curtailed to some degree by other considerations - most notably, the baby/fetus's right to not be harmed. The erosion of holding human life as sacred, and the erosion of thinking of unborn humans as fully human, has led us inexorably to the Planned Parenthood horror revealed in those released videos. That cannot be ignored, and should figure into what is an obvious need to revisit the abortion issue as a society. The fact is, abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. There are some instances where killing a human is justified, and it could be said that a woman has a right to an abortion under those circumstances. But nobody has unlimited, unrestricted rights over their own body, nor should they, and "women's health" is nothing but a term used for deceptive propaganda purposes.William J Murray
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST
Surely, a major part of the Great Apostasy, KF.Axel
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PST
WJM @ 10. Thank you so very much for that post. It is a great encouragement.Barry Arrington
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PST
WJM, thanks again. That is important, in the face of rampant, spreading, domineeringly wise- in- one's- own- eyes stubborn absurdity that draws support from the institutional dominance of self-refuting, lab coat clad evolutionary materialist scientism and its accommodationist fellow- traveller Quislings and 5th columnists. KFkairosfocus
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST
REW, the Nazi holocaust was 6 mn Jews, and what 5 mn others, mostly Poles in both cases. In addituion, Hitler's invasion was responsible for the deaths of 25+ million Russians, broadly using that term. The targetted slaughter of the Roma was the next largest number after Jews in the holocaust proper. (But we should lay those 25 million Russians at Hitler's feet, discounting for overlaps of course.) The abortion holocaust on reasonable estimates is 55 - 58+ mn in the USA and many 100's of millions globally. As Pastor Keller McFarlane is pointing out as I type, by killing in the womb, a huge potential to do good is being destroyed. And, we now see those implicated in carrying out the mass killings being caught on video discussing cutting up the resulting bodies and selling parts for tainted medical research. In one case, ambition to own a what US$ 1/4 million car, is on the table. And, we find a mass resistance to facing what this reveals about what our civilisation has done through being warped and corrupted by literally unprecedented bloodguilt. No, we have become folly maddened and are engaging on a stubborn march of folly. KFkairosfocus
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PST
We all know, too, Barry, don't we, that it is really an insanity of the heart: prompting an irrational protection of a patently disproven world-view. But I believe a lot of people have learnt the truth concerning the vacuity of evolution beyond minor modifications within a species, so on political grounds, the arguments carried on by the pertinacious and stout of heart, in order to counter 'evolution' and other atheist twaddle has by no means been in vain, it seem to me.Axel
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PST
The only reason someone would call a red pen a flower pot is if they were intentionally trying to make a point about language, or if they were trying to be annoying. It would probably be possible to reach some sort of agreement on the Holocaust. It would require long discussions on the definition of 'evil' 'good' 'bad'. A theist and an atheist may never agree completely on all points but I think they could come to a general agreement.REW
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PST
I also want to again point out that I am an example of someone who read these kinds of posts on this very site and was still open to reasoned argument. You guys helped to change my life completely. You never know when someone is reading and they just have never had access to the mental tools they needed to see things properly. All you can do is provide the tools. Whether or not they pick them up and use them is their choice.William J Murray
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PST
Excellent post - very necessary.
It really is the case, it seems, that they believe “valid argument” means the same thing as “the ability to keep typing.”
This says a lot - we've seen it dozens of times, as you mention. This is why the policy of banning posters is so essential. Feeding the trolls does not merely cause boring discussions -- it actually helps validate a false ideology on the basis explained above. As long as people keep typing, they give the impression that they have something to say. They make it appear like a valid argument is continuing. But the argument ended a long time previously. When they blatantly contradicted themselves, or avoided a clear, logical question on their own worldview (and showed no sincere interest in understanding the problems of their worldview) -- then the discussion ended. They just claimed the red pen was a TV set. All you can say at that point is 'goodbye'.
This leads to the inverted condition of feeling guilty or irrational for not adopting wholesale mental disorder. . . .
So true. Materialism and atheism are destructive of society and are anti-human ideologies. Unfortunately, our culture has allowed that kind of diseased thinking to command a position of honor in intellectual life.Silver Asiatic
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PST
BA: There is a whole corpus by Kocher here: http://members.citynet.net/theanalyticpapers/ Following up from last evening, LH tried the Kantian ugly gulch gambit, again inadvertently revealing the links between is and ought. I responded just now here: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/science-worldview-issues-and-society/dk-and-god-as-the-claimed-ultimate-case-of-might-makes-right/#comment-577982 Things are now unravelling faster and faster with our civilisation as the cliff's edge crumbles underfoot. And in a day when many pretend that it makes sense to argue (apologies to Lincoln for adapting him) thusly:
. . . the tail of a sheep is a leg, so a sheep must have five legs, how dare you fascist oppressor say otherwise, it's our RIGHT to say a tail is a leg . . .
. . . we are well advised to reply with what is now an act of courage: A is A, not NOT-A, and not both A AND NOT-A. For telling instance, within months of the recent utterly ill-advised and ungrounded, arbitrary US Supreme Court ruling, we already find universities in the USA trying to do away with he, she etc. So, we can readily see students under threat of academic and administrative penalty being forced to write nonsense about the micro-aggression or whatever silly thought police notion is used, implicit in saying he or she, him or her, his or hers. Sorry, I am a he. So are my dad, grand-dad, brother, son, uncle etc. My wife, my mother, my sister, my grandma, my aunt are all gloriously and materially different: she etc, being the appropriate English language terms. Attempts to pretend that such is not the case defy realities that are literally stamped into our DNA. It's not oh a red pen is a flower pot is a stop light, it is that we deal with those who step by step reveal that they cannot escape the Kantian ugly gulch between the subjective inner world (which they seem to imagine is an infinitely plastic illusion) and the outer one of things in themselves forming a shared objective reality. We are at civilisational reductio ad absurdum. To all such, I point out that we take the red pill to wake up from the nightmarish dream world they would impose, while projecting their own fascism unto us (and FYI fascism is a leftist ideological disease, insofar as left and right have any meaning left in them). As a start, let us ponder Josiah Royce's point: error exists is undeniably true and logically, absolutely certain, a warranted true and absolute point of knowledge about reality. For, to try to deny such immediately, patently provides a case of error. So, directly, we know beyond doubt a gulch-spanning reality: yes, error exists is necessarily so but that is in itself a case of knowledge of things in themselves. Further, as F H Bradley aptly highlighted in his Appearance and Reality, to imagine that we know that there is an unbridgeable ugly gulch between the inner world and outer reality, is to immediately imply claimed certain or even dogmatic knowledge of that allegedly unreachable external world. That is, its alleged unknowability. So, the seemingly clever and profound claim pricks itself and explosively deflates in self-falsifying self contradiction. Pow- pffft, splat. Game over, by fools mate. Further, it is clear that the attempt to deny moral knowledge immediately entangles rationality, knowledge and responsible freedom in the collapse, leading to grand delusion and collapse of rationality. This too is self-refuting. So, we have to face the reality of IS, the reality of OUGHT, and the necessity of bridging them. That points straight to the only level where such can be done (on pain of Hume's gap: is, is -- then, presto, poof -- ought, ought). Namely, the world root. And as neither self-originating cause nor infinite descent to a zero-point at the origin of our cosmos at the big bang or whatever, leading then in a chain of cause to us today can make coherent sense, we are left with a finitely remote, unconditioned root of reality. Where as non-being has no causal powers, so if ever there were an utter nothing, such would forever obtain, as a world now is, something always was. Something ontologically necessary, thus at the root of this or any other actualisable world. A necessary being world-root. And, in a world that has in it morally governed, responsibly free rational contingent beings (us), that cause must be in itself capable of grounding OUGHT. There is, after centuries of debates, just one serious candidate to be such: the inherently good Creator God, a necessary, maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and our reasonable responsible service by doing the good we know or should know in accord with our evident nature. That, is the best and only serious explanation of our world on the table. If you would deny or dismiss such, simply provide and at least in outline justify an alternative on comparative difficulties: ______________________ . (I predict, again, no-one will propose a serious alternative, but there will be studious ignoring of this challenge and/or rhetorical sniping.) Our civilisation is falling apart in the sort of madcap delusional fantasies and marches of folly that used to be reserved for movies and novels. All, driven at depth by the magma chamber of the bloodguilt of many hundreds of millions of the unborn, 99% of whom were slaughtered because they were somehow inconvenient. Bloodguilt corrupts, corrupts and endarkens thought, conscience, policy, behaviour, civilisation. And it leads to the terrible judgement of consequences: the march of folly off the cliff into chaotic ruin, rebounding into tyranny under our new masters and thought police. Let us wake up, repent, seek forgiveness and reform before the cliff's edge crumbles underfoot and precipitates us into chaos. (And I think that voting into office those who have dealt with Iran as we are seeing, is one of the terrible signs of what is looming ahead unless we act now to avert it -- if, it is not already too late. With, nuclear fire an all too likely outcome.) Our civilisation, professing itself wise and proudly turning its back on God, has gone patently mad and has played the fool, portending bloody ruin. It is time to wake up to reality. Potentially, horrific reality. Such, are the matches we have been playing with. KFkairosfocus
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PST
There is a connection between the recognition of moral law and the recognition of fact. To take one example, regions where honest practices are expected of government and business tend also to do well in sciences and have higher longevity. Decline in respect for either is not a good sign, but we will probably see correlated declines in years to come. The need to prop up Darwinism, the multiverse, etc., has analogues in many areas.News
August 30, 2015
August
08
Aug
30
30
2015
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PST
Great post! Maybe Learned hand and Zachriel keep flower pot in their shirt pocket just in case they need to write something down :)Eugen
August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PST
Saul Alinsky. Rules For Radicals. That's the source for a lot of this insanity that manifests itself as people who just won't stop talking, even when they have nothing logical or rational to say.EDTA
August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PST
But, but. Holocaust is just a word. right? Yet the atheists seem to belabor the point that the advantage they have over us theists is their use of reason, their commitment to being rational. gagMung
August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PST
Just keep in mind your efforts are not to convince the insane, but rather to reveal the insanity of their views to others still capable of rational comprehension. You're all doing a wonderful job, and the good news is that they stay here and keep posting that which can be used as specimens on display for all to see.William J Murray
August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PST
Isaiah 5
20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. 22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, 23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe, but deny justice to the innocent. http://biblehub.com/niv/isaiah/5.htm
bornagain77
August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PST
You can only believe the Holocaust is objectively evil if you believe in a God who defines good and evil objectively. http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/video-john-lennox-on-problem-of-evil_7.html
Richard Taylor “The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion. He concludes, Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.” Dennis Prager To put this as clearly as possible: If there is no God who says, "Do not murder," murder is not wrong. Many people or societies may agree that it is wrong. But so what? Morality does not derive from the opinion of the masses. If it did, then apartheid was right; murdering Jews in Nazi Germany was right; the history of slavery throughout the world was right; and clitoridectomies and honor killings are right in various Muslims societies. So, then, without God, why is murder wrong? Is it, as Dawkins argues, because reason says so? My reason says murder is wrong, just as Dawkins's reason does. But, again, so what? The pre-Christian Germanic tribes of Europe regarded the Church's teaching that murder was wrong as preposterous. They reasoned that killing innocent people was acceptable and normal because the strong should do whatever they wanted.
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/03/video-lecture-by-john-lennox-explains_23.html
Albert Einstein “You are right in speaking of the moral foundations of science, but you cannot turn around and speak of the scientific foundations of morality.” Nietzsche Indeed, only if we assume a God who is morally our like can “truth” and the search for truth be at all something meaningful and promising of success. This God left aside, the question is permitted whether being deceived is not one of the conditions of life.
Jim Smith
August 29, 2015
August
08
Aug
29
29
2015
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PST

Leave a Reply