that booklet that was promised by the True Reason folks

[velkyn]

the True Reason folks were no where to be found at the Reason Rally. They had promised to bring booklets to show atheists just how only Christians really had reason.  But alas, it seems that they couldn't be bothered to actually tell us.  I spent a lot of my time there looking for them but they were no where to be found.  But for a mere $3  you can have their wonderful booklet.  Ah, the typical Christians, how sad.

http://book.truereason.org/

the excerpt is hilarious.  They of course must try to redefine reason as "reason proper"  and commit all of the fallacies that they would so desperately claim that "only" atheists do.  In all it seems to be exactly as expected, a booklet of the same old shit that Christians have lied about for years.

[nogodsforme]

I think it is funny that one of the authors of a chapter is named, not John Small Berries or John Bigbootie, but  "John DePoe". Could it be? Please, please, please? It would be so easy for one of us to pwn these people.....and get paid for it!

[Omen]

The excerpt doesn't really present anything other than a vague accusatory personal attack, there is a short portion that seems to build up to what is sounding like a mockingly stupid strawman:

If I take it to be true that I am only to believe what can be empirically demonstrated to be true, how can I demonstrate that that is true? Its truth can’t be empirically demonstrated. As a canon of reason, “only believe what can be demonstrated by objective, empirical, preferably scientific evidence” is appropriate for those matters for which it is appropriate, but clearly it does not fit all questions of truth.

The strawman of treating 'science' as being interchangeable with absolute truth, the false dichotomy of implying it's either scientific atheism or not, and probably the hypocrisy of rejecting science where it is conveniently self serving ( evolution ).

I searched the author down of that particiular chapter that does talk about science and faith.  Sure enough, he uses incredibly vague and sometimes specifically loaded language with regards to evolutionary science.  He treats it as if it were totally ambiguous and not coherently defined in any sense, presenting as it as if that were the literal case.  Such as he does in this example:

http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/can-a-christian-believe-in-evolution/

The troublesome thing about this question is the word “evolution.” It means different things to different people. “Change over time” is one basic definition. Used this way, no one objects to evolution. Another meaning includes the idea that living things have descended, with modifications, from common ancestors. Some evolutionists think all living things evolved from a single source. This is more controversial.

Elsewhere his site is littered with intelligent design trash:

http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/objection-overruled-responding-to-the-top-ten-objections-against-design/

He attempts to describe or answer an objection that ID is not testable, but he never arrives to any kind of conclusion or valid example with regards to testing a hypothesis scientifically.  He literally tries to redefine testing, makes another half witted dig at evolution, and in his hubris.. he seems to admit that one would have to present an example to disprove ID if it were testable.. yet at no point does he come up with it.

This criticism is meant to disqualify ID as a science. But for ID to be considered untestable (and hence, unscientific) there has to be a clear definition of what it means for something to be testable and a clear failure of ID to meet that definition. As it is, no such definition exists.

If by “testable” we mean that a theory should be open to confirming or disconfirming evidence, then ID most certainly passes the test. Darwin presented what he regarded as strong evidence against design. But claiming that ID has been tested by evidence and shown to be false creates, for the critic, a catch-22: If evidence can count against a theory, evidence must also be able to count in favor of a theory. The knife cuts both ways.

One cannot say, “Design is not testable,” and then turn around and say, “Design has been tested and shown to be false!” For evidence to show that something is false implies that evidence might also show it to be true, even if one thinks the particular evidence in question fails to establish a claim.

ID has in fact been tested and confirmed across a wide range of disciplines including molecular biology, physics, and chemistry.[6] Even if critics reject the evidence for design, in the very act of rejecting the evidence they put design to the test (which is exactly what they do all the time when no one is looking!).

A simple way to see that ID is testable is to consider the following “thought experiment.” Imagine what would happen if microscopic investigation revealed the words “Made by Yahweh” inscribed in the nucleus of every cell. Of course, cells are not inscribed with the actual words “Made by Yahweh,” but that’s not the point. The point is that we wouldn’t know this unless we actually “tested” cells for this sign of intelligence. If ID fails, it won’t be for lack of testability.

[Omen]

I can't possibly pass this up.

Do you guys remember when a woman was mauled by her pet chimp?

Well, do you want to know who's fault that was?

1. Irresponsible pet ownership ( the woman )? Nooooo
2. Laws that didn't forbid such pet ownership? Noooooooo
3. The person who sold or provided the pet chimp? Noooooooo
....
4. Darwinian science? YES


I"m totally fucking serious:

http://www.seanmcdowell.org/index.php/science/is-the-chimp-mauling-darwins-fault/

This week we received the sobering news that a 55-year old woman was nearly killed by a 200 pound chimp. Her face was so severely disfigured and unrecognizable that one news station reported the victim as a man. In case you are wondering how a chimp could be so powerful, an animal expert on CNN (Larry King Live) reported that chimp’s are roughly five times as strong as human beings. The poor woman was utterly outmatched. My heart is truly broken for this woman and I hope and pray she will experience fully recovery.

Nevertheless, we need to ask a basic question: How could something like this happen? How is it that we live in a culture where people think it’s safe to have a chimpanzee as a pet? Where do people get the idea that we ought to take a wild animal and treat it like a human being? The chimp owner treated the animal like a son who ate at her table, slept in her house, and even drove her car.

Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, there is one culprit for the idea that human beings and chimps are really not that different and should be treated that way: Darwinism. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always taught that humans and chimps are different in terms of kind (Genesis 1-2). While animals are a good part of God’s creation, it is uniquely humans who bear the image of God. Many animals are wild and should be kept that way. On the other hand, Darwin propagated the idea that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and only differ in terms of degree (See Darwin’s The Descent of Man). If humans and chimps are really not that different, then why not expect chimps to act civilly? After all, ideas have consequences.

Last week the world celebrated Darwin’s 200th birthday. Universities placed tributes to Darwinism on their home page (examples include Oxford and Cambridge) and major networks such as BBC ran extensive programs devoted to Darwin’s great contribution to the world.

Yet, ironically, this week we witness a brutal act that seems to logically follow from Darwin’s ideas. You may be wondering how I can possibly link Darwin to this atrocious event. But think about it, if humans are deeply related to chimps then why not expect them to act that way?

Darwinists regularly point out the genetic, structural, and behavioral similarities between humans and chimps (of course, they conveniently overlook the profound differences). Yet, since Darwinists argue so fervently that humans are closely related to chimps, then shouldn’t chimps be expected to act like humans? Shouldn’t Darwinists take some responsibility when some people actually put their ideas into action? It’s certainly not the Christian worldview that would encourage people to treat wild animals like human beings. The Christian worldview places tremendous emphasis on our need to care for creation, but it clearly highlights the fundamental differences between humans and all other animals. Humans are moral beings; animals are not.

Darwinism is not only false, it’s a corrosive idea. Equating humans and animals results in the devaluation of both. As I said before, my heart truly goes out to the victim. But this should be a wakeup call for our culture. Treating humans and animals as moral equivalents is a bad idea. What is it going to take for us to realize this?

Sean McDowell

This is the moron they got to write the science and faith chapter?!?

[nogodsforme]

According to evolution, lions and house cats share a common ancestor. So it must be Darwin's fault if a guy climbs into a lion cage and tries to pet the big kitty....

[jaimehlers]

That example is patently ridiculous, I agree.  To try to link the keeping of a chimpanzee as a pet to Darwinism is just silly.  If that woman did treat the chimp like her son, then it would be much more reasonable to look at possible mental issues that the woman had, rather than blaming a false ideology that no-one seriously suggests except the people who then try to tear it down.

But to get back to that excerpt of the True Reason book, I found something that seemed a bit funny in his discussion of "reason proper".  He seems to assume that because it isn't discussed in atheist literature and that, presumably, atheist leaders "don't practice it" (of course, he subsequently claims that it would be an empty claim no matter how well it was demonstrated, because reason comes from God, don't you know), that atheists somehow don't practice "reason proper" (that is, the ability to draw conclusions from premises, etc).

Certainly seems like a strawman to me.  He painstakingly constructed this definition of "reason proper", claimed that atheists didn't talk about it and their leaders didn't practice it, but strangely declined to provide any examples to illustrate his point.  *eyeroll*  If this is the part that they expect to draw people in, they can keep it.

[Tero]

Again, stuck in reasons, causes and basically feelings:

Christianity far outstrips atheistic naturalism or materialism (roughly, the view that nothing exists but matter and energy and their interactions by law and by chance) as an explanation for our most deeply felt and intimate experiences as humans.

[kaziglu bey]

That example is patently ridiculous, I agree.  To try to link the keeping of a chimpanzee as a pet to Darwinism is just silly. 

Well, perhaps not if argued in a sensible manner. As in, people who are too stupid to realize that wild animals are both "wild" and "animals" and treat them like a member of their family, only to have said wild animal rip their fucking face off, that kind of sounds like natural selection at work (perhaps in a violent way, but it so often is anyways). I could buy into that.

But as this author is suggesting it, just ludicrous. It's really sad that people take garbage like that seriously.

[Add Homonym]

Bit like having a grizzly bear as a pet.

[jtp56]

That example is patently ridiculous, I agree.  To try to link the keeping of a chimpanzee as a pet to Darwinism is just silly. 

Well, perhaps not if argued in a sensible manner. As in, people who are too stupid to realize that wild animals are both "wild" and "animals" and treat them like a member of their family, only to have said wild animal rip their fucking face off, that kind of sounds like natural selection at work (perhaps in a violent way, but it so often is anyways). I could buy into that.

But as this author is suggesting it, just ludicrous. It's really sad that people take garbage like that seriously.

I don't see any problem.  According to your world view, your ancestor is slime!  Sorry, primordial ooze.  Why shouldn't your cousins be nice to you?  According to my world view, mine are.

[Dante]

Really jtp? How many murders, rapes, and other assaults were  committed in your country, state, or city in the last month?

Not to mention its a non-sequiter argument.

[Omen]

Well, perhaps not if argued in a sensible manner. As in, people who are too stupid to realize that wild animals are both "wild" and "animals" and treat them like a member of their family, only to have said wild animal rip their fucking face off, that kind of sounds like natural selection at work (perhaps in a violent way, but it so often is anyways). I could buy into that.

But as this author is suggesting it, just ludicrous. It's really sad that people take garbage like that seriously.

I don't see any problem.

The problem is that the value of human life is being placed in a belief in a supernatural agency which is used to promote an insular, self serving, and xenophobic religious ideology.  It encourages such a deranged myopic perception of human value that a person like you constructs an imagined strawman:

  According to your world view, your ancestor is slime!

In this example, you're intentionally trying to misconstrue the position of someone else, not because that position is inherently invalid or are you offering a reasonable/rational counter to that position, but for no more reason than its not like your own.

We don't place the value of human life in a super natural agency, but neither do we place it in 'slime'.  Evolution is not an ideology.

According to my world view, mine are.

I completely agree, your world view praises an in group vs out group model based on the distinction of what one believes.  Those in the in group are praised not only for their conformity, but their self promoted ignorance ( faith ).  Those on the out group are doggedly defined, described, and dehumanised through every possible/imaginable pejorative available.

Hence, why you're busy hatefully attacking us for not being in the in group of your xenophobic religious ideology.

[jetson]

I don't see any problem.  According to your world view, your ancestor is slime!  Sorry, primordial ooze.  Why shouldn't your cousins be nice to you?  According to my world view, mine are.

All of us evolved from early life forms, you are no different.

[jtp56]

Really jtp? How many murders, rapes, and other assaults were  committed in your country, state, or city in the last month?

Not to mention its a non-sequiter argument.

That's fine.  There are plenty of rapes, murders, etc.  I thought benevolence was an evolutionary trait.  I guess somehow religion got mixed up into the evolutionary mix nixing good behavior.  My bad.

[jtp56]

Well, perhaps not if argued in a sensible manner. As in, people who are too stupid to realize that wild animals are both "wild" and "animals" and treat them like a member of their family, only to have said wild animal rip their fucking face off, that kind of sounds like natural selection at work (perhaps in a violent way, but it so often is anyways). I could buy into that.

But as this author is suggesting it, just ludicrous. It's really sad that people take garbage like that seriously.

I don't see any problem.

The problem is that the value of human life is being placed in a belief in a supernatural agency which is used to promote an insular, self serving, and xenophobic religious ideology.  It encourages such a deranged myopic perception of human value that a person like you constructs an imagined strawman:

  According to your world view, your ancestor is slime!

In this example, you're intentionally trying to misconstrue the position of someone else, not because that position is inherently invalid or are you offering a reasonable/rational counter to that position, but for no more reason than its not like your own.

We don't place the value of human life in a super natural agency, but neither do we place it in 'slime'.  Evolution is not an ideology.

According to my world view, mine are.

I completely agree, your world view praises an in group vs out group model based on the distinction of what one believes.  Those in the in group are praised not only for their conformity, but their self promoted ignorance ( faith ).  Those on the out group are doggedly defined, described, and dehumanised through every possible/imaginable pejorative available.

Hence, why you're busy hatefully attacking us for not being in the in group of your xenophobic religious ideology.

Are we not all "wild" animals?  How does your world view separate "wild animals" from us?

[jtp56]

I don't see any problem.  According to your world view, your ancestor is slime!  Sorry, primordial ooze.  Why shouldn't your cousins be nice to you?  According to my world view, mine are.

All of us evolved from early life forms, you are no different.

True Jetson....My early life form was Adam, yours was primordial ooze.  So why can't we all just get along?

[Omen]

Are we not all "wild" animals?  How does your world view separate "wild animals" from us?

I do not have a world view, nor do I have any concept of whether or not I have to induce 'wild animals' differently from non-wild animals.  The qualification is banal and unnecessary.

I reject the hyperbolic notion of 'world view' as it attempts to devalue rational positions down a level as irrational as your own.  I do not have to presuppose anything about my perceptions on the nature of reality around me.  Passively I can only interact within the limitations of whatever I can sense, regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well.

[Omen]

True Jetson....My early life form was Adam, yours was primordial ooze.  So why can't we all just get along?

The problem doesn't lie with us.

[Omen]

This pamphlet is tantamount to the very problem itself in that it represents an ideological effort to promote the open disparaging of a group of human beings for nothing more than they don't believe the same insular supernatural claims of the people promoting this 'pamphlet.  It is just a list of how many bad things they can make up about non-believers in a single hand out that appeals to no one within reason except an audience of people that want to believe the worst about the targeted group of non-believers in question.

The very same reason you have absolutely no concern that your using a strawman to make some kind of snarky off handed comments, it is so far disconnected from any rationale that it doesn't even have anything to do with a god existing or not existing.  You're too busy attacking a bogey man of your own creation.

[jtp56]

Are we not all "wild" animals?  How does your world view separate "wild animals" from us?

I do not have a world view, nor do I have any concept of whether or not I have to induce 'wild animals' differently from non-wild animals.  The qualification is banal and unnecessary.

I reject the hyperbolic notion of 'world view' as it attempts to devalue rational positions down a level as irrational as your own.  I do not have to presuppose anything about my perceptions on the nature of reality around me.  Passively I can only interact within the limitations of whatever I can sense, regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well.

Come on Omen!  So you don't have a belief in how you became into being?  You state: "Passively I can only interact within the limitations of whatever I can sense, regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well."

If what you say: "regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well" is true, how am I wrong?, which you claim, and you are right?

[Omen]

Come on Omen!  So you don't have a belief in how you became into being? You state: "Passively I can only interact within the limitations of whatever I can sense, regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well."

If what you say: "regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well" is true, how am I wrong?, which you claim, and you are right?

I have no idea if I am absolutely right.

The only thing you need to know or to walk away from this is that nothing that I believe about the nature of reality has anything to do with atheism, everything that I do believe about the nature of reality could be true regardless if a god existed or not.  I do not have a world view that is predicated upon your imagined polemics.

[jtp56]

This pamphlet is tantamount to the very problem itself in that it represents an ideological effort to promote the open disparaging of a group of human beings for nothing more than they don't believe the same insular supernatural claims of the people promoting this 'pamphlet.  It is just a list of how many bad things they can make up about non-believers in a single hand out that appeals to no one within reason except an audience of people that want to believe the worst about the targeted group of non-believers in question.

The very same reason you have absolutely no concern that your using a strawman to make some kind of snarky off handed comments, it is so far disconnected from any rationale that it doesn't even have anything to do with a god existing or not existing.  You're too busy attacking a bogey man of your own creation.

What  pamphlet are you talking about?  What strawman?  Is Jesus a strawman?  Is Mohammed?  What "snarky" off handed comments did I make?

What bogey man did I create?

I'm in the minority  You guys act like Christianity is flooding the world, are you kidding?  Under the radar, it really is, but in the Middle East, not the West.

[jtp56]

Come on Omen!  So you don't have a belief in how you became into being? You state: "Passively I can only interact within the limitations of whatever I can sense, regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well."

If what you say: "regardless if reality is objectively real or an illusion of an objective reality.  This statement is true regardless if a god exists or not as well" is true, how am I wrong?, which you claim, and you are right?

I have no idea if I am absolutely right.

The only thing you need to know or to walk away from this is that nothing that I believe about the nature of reality has anything to do with atheism, everything that I do believe about the nature of reality could be true regardless if a god existed or not.  I do not have a world view that is predicated upon your imagined polemics.

I know I am not absolutely right:

Psalm 19:12 But who can discern their own errors?
   Forgive my hidden faults.
13 Keep your servant also from willful sins;
   may they not rule over me.

You do have a world view.  Sorry, no one is neutral in this.  Your: "I do believe about the nature of reality could be true regardless if a god existed or not" is in it self a world view. 

There are no absolutes is an absolute.

[Omen]

What  pamphlet are you talking about?

If you hadn't noticed, this op is about a pamphlet/booklet published by a christian group who originally advertised that they would be promoting this material at the reason rally.

Hi, welcome to the discussion.  I assumed you read everything here, my mistake.

  What strawman?

Slime.

What bogey man did I create?

Your polemical description of non-belief and evolutionary science as if they were one and the same, or categorised as coming from slime or defining human value based on the belief that we came from slime.

I'm in the minority  You guys act like Christianity is flooding the world, are you kidding? 

Christianity is the majority in most of the western world, specially america.  When I defend human rights, I'm often defending those human rights from the value system of a christian, the person who's rights I might be defending could be a believer or a non-believer ( even a chrsitian ).

The easiest way to persecute a Christian is to prevent them from persecuting someone else.

[Azdgari]

What  pamphlet are you talking about?

Thanks, jtp.  I got a good chuckle out of that one.  Guy comes into the thread, posts a bunch of tripe...and doesn't realize what the thread was about in the first place.  Classic! 

[Omen]

I know I am not absolutely right:

Your religion requires you to believe by a qualification of faith that forbids doubt.

You do have a world view.  Sorry, no one is neutral in this.

I do not have a world view within the polemics you're trying to describe.  Your use of 'world view' is being used to promote a strawman to attack an imagined position and then dismiss it out of personal incredulity.

[jtp56]

What  pamphlet are you talking about?

If you hadn't noticed, this op is about a pamphlet/booklet published by a christian group who originally advertised that they would be promoting this material at the reason rally.

Hi, welcome to the discussion.  I assumed you read everything here, my mistake.

  What strawman?

Slime.

What bogey man did I create?

Your polemical description of non-belief and evolutionary science as if they were one and the same, or categorised as coming from slime or defining human value based on the belief that we came from slime.

I'm in the minority  You guys act like Christianity is flooding the world, are you kidding? 

Christianity is the majority in most of the western world, specially america.  When I defend human rights, I'm often defending those human rights from the value system of a christian, the person who's rights I might be defending could be a believer or a non-believer ( even a chrsitian ).

The easiest way to persecute a Christian is to prevent them from persecuting someone else.

Give me an example where you have: "When I defend human rights, I'm often defending those human rights from the value system of a christian"?

[jtp56]

What  pamphlet are you talking about?

Thanks, jtp.  I got a good chuckle out of that one.  Guy comes into the thread, posts a bunch of tripe...and doesn't realize what the thread was about in the first place.  Classic! 

Give me a break!  How many Christians are here vs. non-Christians? I didn't get the memo.

[jtp56]

I know I am not absolutely right:

Your religion requires you to believe by a qualification of faith that forbids doubt.

You do have a world view.  Sorry, no one is neutral in this.

I do not have a world view within the polemics you're trying to describe.  Your use of 'world view' is being used to promote a strawman to attack an imagined position and then dismiss it out of personal incredulity.

So do you believe you are absolutely right?  Do you have doubts in your......I guess I don't know what you believe.