Author Topic: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1  (Read 647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
No, we're not a billboard for your copy/pasta. If you want to raise a small point to discuss feel free, but any other mass text walls will be summarily deleted.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:51:34 PM by HAL »

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2012, 07:34:04 PM »
What is hypostasis?

What point are you trying to make?

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2012, 07:45:12 PM »
What is hypostasis?

What point are you trying to make?

You didn't read the thread: I said above:

Quote
Metaphysical Classification: It can be confusing to discuss how the union in Christ is metaphysical. Metaphysics have two primary levels. Nature and hypostasis. In this context Person/hypostasis can be defined as a system of consciousness comprehending “greater connotation and lesser extension” than Nature. There are different levels of classification as Clark himself admits. The essence is at the level of necessary predication of a genus, and person/hypostasis is at the level of greater connotation and lesser extension. (The Trinity, by Gordon Clark, pg. 50. It’s on his section on Augustine about 4 pages in.)

The point that i am making is that this doctrine can be explained in rational philosophical terms, which Loftus denied could be done.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2012, 07:51:10 PM »
Olivianus,

See what I posted above ASAP.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2012, 08:16:27 PM »
I wrote every last word of that. How is that a copy pasta?

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2012, 08:18:25 PM »
The entire thread concerned a single point: the explanation of the hypo static union.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5019
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2012, 08:20:55 PM »
I wrote every last word of that. How is that a copy pasta?

Did you copy it? And then did you paste it all? It has nothing to do with who wrote it.

The point is that it's WAY too much material for a forum discussion thread. WAY too much. If you want to discuss a small point that you want to make, go ahead, but your text-wall posts are too much for any reasonable discussion to take place in a forum thread. You have to be a lot more focused in what you present. You can link to all that text, but that's all I'm going to allow as far as that goes.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2012, 08:56:24 PM »
Olivianus -

I'm going to say something that's probably going to come off poorly - please, take this in the best possible light:

you've done a great deal of work and thinking, addressing Loftis's arguments in a very well-written, and even perhaps exhaustive way.  I don't agree with you, but I have absolutely no interest in defending Loftis's precepts.  I.. just don't care.  Many atheists here don't.  Loftis's precepts are quite educated, very philosophical, and residing at the far edge of useful apologetics - basically, they appeal to folks who are delving into the deep end of the apologetic pool.

I highly encourage you to present your arguments to Loftis directly - you can do that quite easily through his blog, and he encourages folks to do so.  He's over at http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/ , and he'll address your arguments directly if you present them to him.

But me?  I don't care.  Your philosophical position is, to me - and I enjoy philosophy, and am fairly widely read in it - so much white noise.  Loftis was not a primary factor in my own deconversion, and I'm going to suggest that most people here never really addressed many of his arguments beyond the OTF.  We aren't his intended audience.

These walls of text you're posting are not something most of us can address.  We are not interested in or deeply invested in Loftis's argument, and we have no reason to defend him. 

For me, your entire argument falls flat due to a single logical failure:  from my perspective, your entire philosophical position is based on the notion of argumentum ad verecundiam - I do not accept the bible as an authoritative work on the nature of God, thus, splitting hairs on biblical definitions are so much noise.  If I accept your God exists and accept that the bible is a definitive holy book, I could find purpose in gleefully splitting hairs with you on advanced apologetics. I'd probably be a theologian myself.

However ... I don't.  For -me-, you haven't addressed the incredibly basic foundations upon which all of your arguments are based.  Loftis exists in your strata; he can and likely will gladly debate with you for hours on the notion of CLarkian metaphysics.  I, and most others here (I dare to say)... just... don't care.  Clark writes incredibly erudite essays based wholly on what we consider to be at best a delusion and, at worst, based in a tacit logical fallacy that renders them all moot.

I wish you the best - Loftis is quite capable of defending himself, and I'm curious what he'll say.  If you want to leap in here, however, looking for someone to take up his cause?  I doubt you'll find it.   Here, you'll have to be a bit more fundamental.  Most people here don't even care who Clark is, much less give any credence to his argument or the thousands of hours of study you've spent thinking through his philosophical point.

Why not start at the very basic beginning?  Why should I care about your ruminations of Christianity?  I assert the foundations of your faith are bankrupt - how will you address the precept that all of your argument is pointless as the very bedrock of Christianity is an illusion?
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2012, 09:05:39 PM »
Grimm,

I did. He kicked me off his blog. He couldn't answer the ten questions I posted on this forum and so he  just gave me the boot.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2012, 09:08:49 PM »
http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/epistemology-and-metaphysics/scripturalist-epistemology-and-metaphysics-by-drake-shelton

I see fragments coming from your other website, but Olivianus, your arguments about consciousness apply to ANY religion, so your argument is along a generic line of trying to prove that ANY god exists.

When I look at Christian arguments, I'm always amazed at how little early Christians knew about philosophy and the meaning of life. So, all your arguments which attempt to argue the existence of a god, via philosophy and logic, are utterly devoid of scriptural backing. They are simply a modern rationalization, without any endorsement from Yahweh, or Jesus.

Christians also natter on about morality and free will, but neither concepts are dealt with in Judaism.

You should also not be starting a new thread for each post. It looks like you are just running away.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2012, 09:10:29 PM »
Col 2:8  See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2012, 09:36:23 PM »
What is hypostasis?

You didn't read the thread: I said above:

Quote
Metaphysical Classification: It can be confusing to discuss how the union in Christ is metaphysical. Metaphysics have two primary levels. Nature and hypostasis. ... is at the level of necessary predication of a genus, and person/hypostasis is at the level of greater connotation and lesser extension. (The Trinity, by Gordon Clark, pg. 50. It’s on his section on Augustine about 4 pages in.)

You are partially correct.  I made about 4 dives into the text and decided it would not be a rewarded effort.  Your quote of yourself does not explain anything.   "It can be confusing to discuss how the union in Christ is metaphysical."  Of course, it's metaphysical.  Nothing confusing about that.  It's just gibberish.   So you didn't answer my question.

I've seen discussions of the Trinity by Boethius and Kant.  It's an endless go-round.

BTW, God is not a Trinity.  God has 5 Bounteous Immortals.  The Zoroastrians say so, so it must be true.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 09:39:53 PM by Historicity »

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2012, 09:40:45 PM »
Olivianus, you are not aware of it but you are a really bad writer.

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2012, 09:41:47 PM »
*wince*

Ollie - I dug into your 'blog a bit.  Your 57 theses are fundamentally flawed in a dozen ways based on a wholly imperfect understanding of both the scientific method and the evolution of philosophy post-Socrates.  In fact, it ignores even a basic understanding of physical phenomena, the philosophical idea of quality (or possessing quality), and incorporates the unfounded belief that science and any religion represent competing theologies.

... in fact, you have so many fundamental flaws in what is designed to be a mirror of Martin Luthor's theses that addressing them all would require me to hand you a reading list as opposed to addressing them myself.

In digging into your attempted refutation of Loftis, I can only say that your philosophical ground is shaky, at best. Despite your thousands of hours in, your cherrypicking of philosophical concepts results in a sort of.. "conspiracy theory" mentality:  your understanding of philosophy is coloured by your expected outcomes of study.  PUt another way, you started with conclusions and excluded competing lines of thought regardless of their merit if they did not agree with your conclusions.

Frankly, your reasoning isn't bad .. it's just willfully ignorant of easily available data and argument.

You also suffer from the 'pasta argument' methodology:  you throw everything at the wall in the hopes that something will stick.  THere is so much to refute that doing so is somewhat pointless; it also grants you a certain illusion of invulnerability.

I'd advise you to start with just one argument - just one idea - and presenting it here in the simplest manner you can address.  Personally, I like this one:

"1.) What about phantom pain that results from an amputated limb? Is this pain not at least similar to solipsism? If not,  from where is the sensation extracted from?"

.. if you'll define the idea of 'extracting sensation', I could probably address this entire statement in three paragraphs.  This represents simple ignorance of brain construction and function; it's an easy one nestled admidst the wall o' text you offer on your 'blog.

Anyway - slow your roll.  Take Hal's advice.  Pick one, simple concept and test the waters with it.  However, recognize that you may be able to learn something by doing so; I'm not seeing much on your site that's particularly strong.
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2012, 09:44:49 PM »
Olivianus, you are not aware of it but you are a really bad writer.

.. his writing reminds me of Dr. Paingloss from Candide.  It seems erudite, at first glance, but the closer you look the more flaws you see, and the odder the whole thing seems.
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2012, 05:19:26 AM »
Add Homonym

My epistemology paper was not meant to prove God’s existence. The evidence i provide for this is here: http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php?topic=50398.0

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2012, 05:24:04 AM »
Grimm,

Quote
“ In fact, it ignores even a basic understanding of physical phenomena, the philosophical idea of quality (or possessing quality),”

Actually Democritus was quite clear to say that atoms had no qualities.

Quote
“ This represents simple ignorance of brain construction and function; it's an easy one nestled admidst the wall o' text you offer on your 'blog.”

I’ve had so many contradictory comments on this forum about the knowledge that science has of the brain that I will never take your assertion seriously.

So all you could do, is attack me personally without refuting a single argument I made. Do you people not understand that you encourage me when you have to resort to insult and personal attack? Don’t you get how insecure you come across when you have to do that?

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7314
  • Darwins +171/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2012, 06:48:45 AM »
Grimm,

Quote
“ In fact, it ignores even a basic understanding of physical phenomena, the philosophical idea of quality (or possessing quality),”

Actually Democritus was quite clear to say that atoms had no qualities.

Quote
“ This represents simple ignorance of brain construction and function; it's an easy one nestled admidst the wall o' text you offer on your 'blog.”

I’ve had so many contradictory comments on this forum about the knowledge that science has of the brain that I will never take your assertion seriously.

So all you could do, is attack me personally without refuting a single argument I made. Do you people not understand that you encourage me when you have to resort to insult and personal attack? Don’t you get how insecure you come across when you have to do that?

If you cannot look in the mirror and do some actual self-evaluation, then why should anyone take you seriously?

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Darwins +18/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2012, 08:08:55 AM »
What is hypostasis?

What point are you trying to make?
In Christian theology, a hypostasis or person is one of the three elements of the Holy Trinity.

It's some religious trivia. It made Jesus possible. They had to stick him in some category higher than prophet when they made up this shit. So then they have been redefining it some 2000 years. Or at least 1700.

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #20 on: March 21, 2012, 08:18:31 AM »
Grimm,

Quote
“ In fact, it ignores even a basic understanding of physical phenomena, the philosophical idea of quality (or possessing quality),”

Actually Democritus was quite clear to say that atoms had no qualities.

There is more to philosophy than pre-socratic thought.  In fact, the entire discipline has evolved a great deal since 460BCE.  Ignoring modern philosophy - even something as easy to grasp as, say, Pirsig's ruminations on 'quality' and his modernizations of Democritus demonstrates willful ignorance.

In other words, you've sort of 'stalled out' at an era that supports your assertions.  How am I supposed to explain another 2500 years - give or take - of philosophical evolution and discussion to you on a forum?  If your entire assertion rests on Democritus, how can I explain to you how Bertrand Russell expresses Democritus's philosophy as a 'lucky hypothesis' - which isn't to say that it's not interesting, but impossible for Democritus to actually base on observation?

Democritus was exceedingly brilliant, and may be considered a father of modern science - but his assault on all things mystical is also legendary.  Using him to support your assertion of hypostasis, lifting and choosing one small piece of his philosophical legacy to bastardize into a broken logical chain?  It doesn't work, and I don't begin to know how to really show you that here.

Quote
Quote
“ This represents simple ignorance of brain construction and function; it's an easy one nestled admidst the wall o' text you offer on your 'blog.”

I’ve had so many contradictory comments on this forum about the knowledge that science has of the brain that I will never take your assertion seriously.

You see, this is your issue - you are so certain you actually have answers that you cannot incorporate new ideas.  If you expect a forum to offer more than the very seeds of thought, then you have an oddly inflated view of what forums can do; the exploration of your position, your status as a "seeker of truth", if you choose to pursue philosophical ideals, is merited solely on your willingness to pursue truth regardless of personal bias.  Forums are bite-sized discussions, not really able to do more than offer guideposts to deeper considerations. 

On your blog, for instance, you talk about how you don't understand phantom limb pain - but in the last decade-and-a-half, neuroscience has made huge strides in comprehending both what causes it and how to work with the idea.  The fact that you use phantom limb pain as a primary thesis in your own list of theses implies that you're not current on nor interested in the research.  If you are, I'd suggest starting with V.S. Ramachandran's research - you can get a teaser from his TED talk:  http://www.ted.com/talks/vilayanur_ramachandran_on_your_mind.html .

Quote
So all you could do, is attack me personally without refuting a single argument I made. Do you people not understand that you encourage me when you have to resort to insult and personal attack? Don’t you get how insecure you come across when you have to do that?

Maybe, but I'm not.  If you'll scroll back up a bit, you'll notice I picked one, single topic I can discuss with you reasonably, and asked for a bit more information from  your perspective.  If you're truly interested in discussion, perhaps you'll offer that answer and we'll get started; I'm not about to address your entire series of arguments - thousands, and thousands of words, in situ here.  Who has the time?  I will, however, gladly talk with you about 'em one at a time.

And, frankly, you do remind me of Dr. Paingloss.  We'll see if I change that opinion, if you'd like to talk things through, by the time the discussion is finished.  If I do, I'll be the first to aplogize to you for a mischaracterization - so far, I'm not seeing it, however.
"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5263
  • Darwins +601/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #21 on: March 21, 2012, 10:04:45 AM »
I'd like to reiterate the points made by several others here to Olivianus.

First, the fact that you wrote something does not mean it's made of gold.  You are in no way immune to criticism, especially if what you write is written badly and is confusing and muddled to boot.  Which, to be blunt, it is.  I read one of your other essays (the one which tried to link atheism to communism and Nazism), and it was as bad as what Grimm describes here.  It's dependent on your own peculiar interpretation of philosophy to even be comprehensible, and it lacked coherence - you tended to ramble quite a bit, and you weren't making any real effort to cut out unnecessary verbiage.  In fact, there's so much writing there that it conveys the clear impression that you're just trying to bury your readers in words rather than convey ideas that are understandable.

Plus, you tended to strip huge quotes from other people's work and insert them wholesale into your own writing; even though you listed them as a source, the quotes were so long that it was easy to start reading their words as yours.  To be blunt, when you quote something (even if it's your own work, as it was here), you need to quote sparingly.  You certainly should link to the original writing in any case, but it is a bad idea to simply lift a huge chunk of that writing and insert it wholesale into your own.  That's a form of plagiarism, even if you cite your sources.  Even if your source is yourself, you still shouldn't do that.

If you're going to take the time to present your ideas on other forums, you need to get used to the fact that others will expect you to not simply copy-paste them from other places.  By all means, link to where you've written them before, but don't simply plop a pageful of your previous writing on a forum and expect people to appreciate it.

And finally (and probably most importantly), don't fall in love with your own philosophical ideas.  For example, you've tried to argue several times here, and who knows how many more elsewhere, that science has to be based on your philosophy of "objects of knowledge that stay constant through change", and smugly demanded that people come up with an alternative to Democritus's idea of atoms as indivisible and unchanging in order to provide those "objects of knowledge".  Yet when people argue that science uses empirical analysis and inductive reasoning to discover things and rule out provably false ideas, you claim that those are wrong because they don't represent "objects of knowledge".  The fact is that science is not based on "objects of knowledge", and certainly not "revealed objects of knowledge", and thus trying to argue against it because it doesn't use "objects of knowledge" is at most going to elicit a "yeah, so?" response.

In short, learn to write better and don't assume that your ideas are meaningful just because you came up with them.  If other people are consistently telling you that they don't make sense, then perhaps that's something you need to think about.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2766
  • Darwins +223/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Second Reply to Chapter 3 part 1
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2012, 08:53:55 AM »
Pardon my impertinence, but doesn't the fourth beast "... shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces".

It would seem imbecilic to argue that the Roman empire devoured the whole Earth, unless you were an imbecile. I know it's an amazing bit of prophecy to predict that one kingdom would come after another, and especially that it would have a west AND an eastern part, but even with those generous terms, Daniel still seems to have fucked up.

When Olivianus deals with why the Maccabeean 168BC date fakery theory is wrong, he kind of skimps on the details of why Daniel's prediction of a beast that devoured the world, was impossible without God's help.  Maybe the 4th kingdom is the internetz, and Google is teh King of it?

The prediction states that " and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth " What kingdom could that be, but the American empire?

Then "shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee", which sounds a bit like the British empire, but no specific details are given.

This means that the British Empire comes straight after Nebuchadnezzar, and there was (in fact) no Roman or Ottoman empire. It's a bold prediction, but I suppose Daniel was up for it.




Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.