A friend recently told me about his plans to change his lifestyle.
He was going to start “living more naturally”.
So, naturally, I had some questions.
Like, “Is it even possible to live unnaturally?”
“Where would you go to live less naturally?”
We love to see the word ‘natural’.
Especially on boxes of food.
I don’t doubt these labels…
Because ALL ingredients are natural.
They don’t list SUPER-natural ingredients on the package.
“Contains: eggs, flour, milk… and prayer”*
There are no ingredients that exist apart from nature.
“Welcome to ‘Chopped’. Today’s mandatory ingredient is pixie dust!”
We throw the word ‘natural’ all over the place.
“This room makes excellent use of natural lighting.”
Nature only makes one kind of light wave.
An expectant couple can’t say…
“We decided to light the nursery with the affection from the hearts of angels.”
But the weirdest use of ‘natural’ is in reference to death.
“He died of natural causes.”
Grizzly bears are part of nature.
Being mauled is ‘dying of natural causes’.
Every year people are killed by vending machines…
…which are part of nature too…
… being crushed under a snack machine is also ‘death by natural causes’.
The truth is…
… death can’t be caused by nature.
Because life isn’t caused by nature.
Life is a supernatural phenomenon.
Death is the reverse of life.
Your body is the package that contains the real ‘you’.
This would be an appropriate tattoo:
When the package is emptied of its ingredients, it returns to dust.
That’s completely natural.
Here’s what’s unnatural…
…that the dust was somehow ‘alive’ a little earlier.
——–
*No offense intended to kosher products. But honestly, if it wasn’t labeled as ‘kosher’ you wouldn’t know. “This veal is delicious! You can really taste the blessing!”
100 Responses
John,
Whenever I hear someone say they want to live more naturally, I assume they are planning to move to a nudist commune.
There is death of other than natural causes, of course. There is death of supernatural causes. Ask Lot’s wife, Uzzah, Moses, and Ananias and Sapphira. I am unsure what a coroner would discover if he examined the body in those cases. Would it be a simple “the heart stopped”? Or would there be some *otherness* that had occurred within the body. As for Lot’s wife, I guess the cause of death could have been toxic salinification.
And the body’s death, be it natural or supernatural, is not as serious an issue as the soul’s death, or eternal condemnation in the Lake of Fire, AKA the Second Death. That is the scary one. That is a supernatural cause as well.
I pray that readers of your blog will not experience the Second Death. I pray that God work on the hearts of the unbelievers so they will know the surpassing greatness of knowing God, the peace that only He can bring, experience true love that knows no boundaries, and can stand before the Almighty without blemish because of what Christ has done on the Cross.
Dave
Matthew 10:28 (ESV) – And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Revelation 2:11 (ESV) – He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.
Dave, a good example of Poe’s Law.you offered.
Nevermore
The Templeton Foundation (a Christian research group) has spent $1.5 billion (billion with a “B”) and the last 30+ years trying to find the soul, and, to date, their efforts have returned exactly zero positive results.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a huge fan of the Templeton Foundation. I think everything should be explored and tested, and as getting public monies to research spiritual claims would be impossible, it falls to private institutions like the TF to fund such research.
For that, I salute them.
But, of course, there is a very easy way to test this hypothesis of yours and see if it has any merit. If a soul exists independent of the brain then we should be able to see this thing in action in cases of brain damage. That is to say, if the brain is damaged (especially certain regions of the brain) there should be no change to the person’s personality.
Certain physical functions might be affected, sure, but personality? No. It should remain unaffected.
This is not the case.
There are libraries of case studies detailing severe profound changes in personality in cases of brain trauma
Indeed, you need only research Dr. Walter Freeman’s Ice-Pick Lobotomies to see nearly 2,500 examples of this terrible procedure (since banned) changing the patients personality.
Somebody forgot the radio analogy apparently…
The soul isn’t SEPARATE from the body… they are connected.
Your brain damage statement is like saying, “We can test whether signals come from outside the radio! If they do, then we should be able to hear the music even after we’ve beaten the radio with a bat!”
Then smiling smugly when the music stops.
Yes, I tend to ignore half-witted, imbecilic things.
So, you’re saying the “soul” has no connection to the body, or the person’s personality.
That’s interesting…
So, what is the purpose of the “soul,” then, if it doesn’t represent the “person”?
Yeah, That’s what I’m saying.
The soul has no connection to the body.
And radios have no connection to signals…
No, wait.
That’s not what I said at all.
Yes, it is.
So, what is the purpose of the “soul” if it doesn’t represent the “person”?
I don’t know how to define soul for you, JZ.
I’m only saying that testing for invisible signals by breaking the receiver (the brain) is a bad method.
mrsmcmommy, hello?
What is the purpose of the “soul” if it doesn’t represent the “person”?
That is, of course, what you’re saying.
That is, at least, what you’re trying to argue by denying the tens of thousands of individual case studies which demonstrate, beyond all doubt, that brain injury (including lobotomy’s) result in profound and permanent personality changes.
That, of course, wouldn’t happen if the “soul” represented the “person,” would it…
So, what is the purpose of the “soul” if it does not represent the “person”?
Cool your jets, dude.
My sister got married tonight, so I have responsibilities that don’t include hovering over my phone waiting to hear from you.
Sheesh.
”I don’t know how to define soul for you, JZ.”
Really, and yet here you are saying it exists, despite the evidence. Do you serve cream with that buffet of special pleading?
“I’m only saying that testing for invisible signals by breaking the receiver (the brain) is a bad method.”
What “invisible” signals?
Actually, don’t bother answering that. Like I said, I tend to ignore half-witted, imbecilic things.
So, if the “soul” represents the “person,” is their personality, as you are professing it is, then explain to me why that personality changes so profoundly (and predictably) with traumatic brain injury?
Here, I know you and your dad don’t like reading scientific papers, so here are some pretty moving picture in full colour to help you think this through…
I don’t know how to define “soul” in the same way you don’t know how to define “consciousness.” What is it?
As you’ve said before, it’s not a thing. Thoughts aren’t things, either.
…you’re basically asking me to explain why the music sounds jumbled after someone takes a bat to a radio.
Let me see if I can explain this to you carefully and thoughtfully: it sounds different because the receiver is broken, dolt.
Salad and cream with that buffet of special pleading, I see.
And still with the radio analogy, huh? Didn’t I warn you, I ignore half-witted, imbecilic things… Just like you’re ignoring the science (which proves you wrong) so as to maintain your pantomime version of reality.
Here, I’ll let John Cleese explain your short-comings regarding this “analogy”…
And please don’t bother responding. You bore me very quickly.
Does that work with other Theists? You get to decide what’s “imbecilic” and what’s solid, factual “reality?”
YOU define the terms?
YOU make the judgments regarding what’s true and what’s illusion/fantasy/woo?
It may work with others, but your bluff has been called here.
You’ve got nothing to offer–except, “NU-UH!!!”
Either address the facts and defend your claim, or fade away.
If the “soul” represents the “person,” is their personality, as you are professing it is, then explain to me how and why that personality changes so profoundly (and predictably) with traumatic brain injury?
Those are the facts.
Deal with them.
I didn’t make a claim, Dolt!
Except to say that your proposed scientific test for disproving the existence of a soul is flawed.
I never said “personality” and “person” are the same thing, and have no idea where you’re getting that.
Brains are important parts of people. But they’re not ALL a person is. There is more to a person than pure matter.
So it’s free salad, cream, and bread sticks with that buffet of special pleading.
Enjoy your sister’s wedding.
I don’t have to make a case for something that all humans know by instinct.
It’s pretty cool.
When people start acting like we’re nothing but matter, they get called “crazy.”
So, apparently, it’s YOUR view which is impossible to live consistently with.
But they’re not ALL a person is. There is more to a person than pure matter.
And there it is… the belief that refuses to allow reality to arbitrate a claim made about it. This is the conclusion assumed to be adduced from reality but in fact an a priori belief imposed on it and then misrepresented to be a conclusion rather than the dubious premise it actually is.
This is how theism works to ‘reveal’ truths about reality: it imposes beliefs on it – regardless if they are true or not. Because they are believed to be true, they must be so no matter what reality has to say in the matter.
Right. That’s my assumption.
And your assumption is that all of “reality” is physical.
Anything which can’t be explained in physical terms gets summarily tossed out.
You wrote: “Of course, mrsmcmommy will insist that the surgical cutting of the two hemispheres ( a common treatment for epilepsy) MUST BE like smashing a radio with a bat. This is idiotic, of course…”
And I agree that’s idiotic. I never said you can’t do brain surgery or brain experiments. But you and JZ seem to be in the mood to shove words in my mouth today.
People can fix brains just like they can fix radios.
They can help a person receive a clearer signal…
They can help us dial in to a greater number of frequencies than before…
The problem with Naturalist/Materialist scientists is that they can’t explain what a “good” brain should produce.
What kind of music should our brains play, Tildeb?
You’ve never told us whether it makes moral sense to remove the part of the brain which makes people religious?
See, here’s the problem…
And your assumption is that all of “reality” is physical.
No, it’s not an assumption. It’s an adduced conclusion. That matters… if we are honestly trying to figure out how reality works and what it contains. There is no evidence for your claims, no connection between the reality we share and the theistic beliefs you hold about it. You pretend to already know your theistic claims are true because you believe stuff and then impose that belief on reality AS IF it’s true, as if it’s actually the case, and then misrepresent this assumption you impose on reality as if it comes from reality. This is dishonest and deceitful. Your method is backwards to my own. That does not make them the same or equivalent as you consistently try to make them out to be.
You then accuse me falsely – again – by saying I think that Anything which can’t be explained in physical terms gets summarily tossed out.
No. This is not true, not the case. Whenever I encounter something that CURRENTLY cannot be explained in physical terms doesn’t mean I ‘throw it out’. I recognize my own ignorance. So I honestly say, I do not know. You repackage this to mean it’s a black mark against me. But you don’t admit the same. You ASSUME something that cannot be currently explained means it CANNOT be explained in physical terms. You do this by assuming stuff DOES exist independent of physical processes and cause effect and yet have exactly the same amount of evidence I do for this claim: none. You then replace an honest ‘I don’t know’ with all kinds of made up crap about supernatural causation and mystical forces and numinous entities that supposedly have no physical properties and yet somehow magically cause real physical effect. What I’m throwing out are your imaginings because they are empty of any truth value, have no connection to the reality we share, no explanatory or knowledge value except by your belief they do, and full to the brim with dishonest hubris when you pretend to know stuff you know nothing about independent of your belief. You state stuff about these things you know nothing about from reality as if they are reasonable conclusions when they’re not. They are imposed beliefs masquerading as knowledge claims yet empty of knowledge value. You don’t even recognize this fact. That’s what I’m discarding your explanatory beliefs because they possess no knowledge I can verify or test and so have zero value for any applications, therapies, or technologies based on them.
That’s a powerful independent indicator that you’re beliefs are just made up crap. Your beliefs are – as far as I can tell – pure woo,and yet you treat them as if they are worthy of equivalency to informed conclusions. They’re not and that’s what I’m pointing out.
Sorry, did you answer my question anywhere about what consciousness is? You assume it has a purely, PURELY physical explanation, right?
No one wants to hear your long accusations against me. Just answer the question. And, if you can’t answer it, then you can’t be upset with me for not describing a soul.
Well, you directed that question to JZ here but I’ve already offered you how and why we claim consciousness is an emergent property of biology on other threads. You don’t care about any of that but simply wave it away because you think already KNOW that consciousness is somehow separate from physical properties.
You just waved away my comment about why I think your accusation against me is wrong. See? You don’t care. You don;t care that you are unfairly accusatory, dishonest, and deceitful in the service of maintaining your religious beliefs. All you care about is maintaining your beliefs and think yourself justified by accusing those who doubt your sincerity about respecting what’s true to be close-minded and biased against you. Good reasoning is not your friend, Amanda. That’s why you have to ignore legitimate criticisms and don the hollow mantle of persecution. Poor you. Being held to account is just too difficult and it’s never your fault. Where’s Daddy when you need him?
I’m still on my phone, so I forgot the question I had posed. Sorry.
Actually, your question was supposed to be, “If we can take Theism out of people by operating on their brains, should we?”
That’s a really poor question because theism isn’t a thing but a belief set. If a removal is to take place, Its removal must be done by the person using it for reasons they find more compelling than the benefits the beliefs offer in return.
I have bad news, Tildeb.
Everything you think you know about “reality” is just a set of beliefs, too.
But–as you’ve repeated over and over and over–it’s just a product of the brain. No brain–no beliefs about “reality.”
It’s all an illusion.
Yes, Amanda, they are beliefs as you say… but not the same KIND. Yours are faith-based. Mine are evidence-adduced. Night and day. Your are identical to illusions, to delusion, to woo. Mine are informed by independent evidence. They are not equivalent on merit. They are equivalent only in your faith-addled brain.
Of course they’re the same kind of beliefs.
Just particles, right?
Particles.
My “faith-addled” brain is no different from yours: looking for meaning where there is none…
Ramchandran has taught me many, many fascinating things about the brain. This clip raises a perfect example. if anyone else dares to understand why split brain experiments are so important to such theological claims. Of course, mrsmcmommy will insist that the surgical cutting of the two hemispheres ( a common treatment for epilepsy) MUST BE like smashing a radio with a bat. This is idiotic, of course, but necessary to avoid questioning the quality and accuracy of her analogy. We mustn’t do that, because she already KNOWS, you see.
Forget McMommy. We already know she’s full of idiotic nonsense. Theistic hocus and blather. Nothing linked to reality. You and JZ have real answers.
The woman who murdered her 3 kids:
What does she need?
What would you say to her?
What would you say at the children’s funeral?
“The truth is… death can’t be caused by nature. Because life isn’t caused by nature.”
Assuming the conclusion.
“Life is a supernatural phenomenon.”
Argument from ignorance.
“Death is the reverse of life.”
Death is the common term we use to describe the cessation of biological life. But there are many kinds of death that have nothing to do with life and everything to do with a cessation of a former state.
Would you mind terribly showing me this unnatural ingredient or list of unnatural ingredients that supposedly inhabits your body yet is not of the body… this supernatural essence that you think constitutes the real you? On the off chance you cannot do this simple thing, can you explain how you can know anything about this ‘unnatural’ substance called ‘life’ that you seem pretty sure animates yet is somehow separate from your biology?
First, you have to prove logic, without assuming the conclusion…
First, logic is an axiomatic system. It’s not the only one (inductive reasoning is a major contributor).
Second, you need to learn what that term means and when to use it appropriately before you pull this tired and well-trod diversionary tactic out of your ass once again. That means you have to accept the axioms FIRST before you can utilize the form. This is why faith-based belief is a failed epistemology; it presumes the conclusions as its premises. I’ve pointed out exactly this mistake being made here over and over and over on this site. It’s a thinking mistake. But rather than deal with epistemological failure produced by this method of inquiry, you just ignore it with this kind of crap.
To find out if the conclusions are useful, you test them against reality and find that as long as your premises are accurate representative of reality, the logical form produces legitimate conclusions that can, in turn, be translated back into reality for testing and usefulness. This is why math ‘works’, for example; quantity is a very important concept.
Thirdly, that’s why ‘proof’ is a term used only within an axiomatic framework and refers ONLY to whether the system has been properly utilized. A conclusion can be perfectly fine logically and be absolutely wrong when tested against reality. Once you enter reality, you then have to switch the terminology to words like likelihood and probability.
This is the difference between a faith-based epistemology that can be perfectly logical and yield not one bit of knowledge about reality (the accuracy of it’s premises to reflect reality is the root problem) and an EVIDENCE-ADDUCED epistemology used in good science.
All that being said, you haven’t said squat about my criticisms of the post and the important not to mention fatal errors on which its conclusion rests.
Using a lot of words isn’t an answer, Tildeb. We’ve told you that over and over and over on this site, and you keep making the same mistake.
I explain. That’s why there are so many words. You should try it.
Everything you talk about presupposes that reality is testable and knowable and worth knowing, Tildeb.
You build on the foundation first laid by Theists who wanted to know Truth.
Assuming that “reality” exists apart from the human brain is inherently theistic. You can’t dismiss philosophy as if it’s not part of reality just because you suck at it.
Yes, reality is testable and knowable. That’s how your cell phone works, mrsmcmommy. It works for you and me and everyone else everywhere there is coverage all the time. That’s as independently verifiable as we can know anything. Your belief – metaphysical, theistic, philosophical – has absolutely nothing to do with it. So when you claim this testing by reality is actually a foundation first laid by Theists who wanted to know Truth, you’re factually wrong. If this were the case, we could test theological claims. We can’t. Theological claims rule out by fiat reality’s arbitration of its claims about reality! That’s the epistemic failure. Theism that relies on metaphysical ideas suffers the same fate: inserting the conclusion in its premises in order to deduce the necessary theistic justifications for it.
I’m not dismissing philosophy from its proper role. You are simply abusing it and then claiming it’s my fault.
No, I get it.
Thanks for clarifying.
You’re allowed to assume the conclusion.
You’re just not going to allow anyone to call the Conclusion “God.”
Sorry I couldn’t get back to this important question yesterday. My daughter got married yesterday and those events have meaning to Theists.
Yesterday, I ran across a headline about a woman who stabbed her 3 children to death (ages 8, 5, and 2 months). And I thought of you, Tildeb.
This woman has provided evidence of how she views reality. From a Theistic standpoint, I would offer that she needs to recognize her sin. She needs to ask to be forgiven. And she needs to allow the spirit of God to transform her mind. Further, as a theist, I would suggest that a person who understands there is a God who made them, knows them and cares for them doesn’t murder other folks in the first place.
I don’t want to be accused of vilifying atheists, so I want you to offer the non-theist position. From your god-free, naturalistic reality, what do you think this woman needs (if anything)? What would you say to her? What would you say at the children’s funeral?
Are you really sure you want to use that example to make what point I have no idea.
Octavia Rogers… A case study in what religion can do.
But let’s not stop there.
Here are some other recent people who lived a consistent, Christian worldview, and killed for “God”:
Dena Schlosser, who while listening to church hymns in 2004 cut off the arms of her 11 month year old baby girl because she claimed God had wanted her to do it as “an offering” before the apocalypse.
Deanna Lajune LeNay who in 2003 bludgeoned her two boys to death because “God was testing her faith.”
Andrea Yates who in 2001 drowned her five children because “Satan had possessed her” and she wanted to “save them from Hell.”
Otty Sanchez who in May, 2012, beheaded her three week old son and ate part of his brain because God told her to.
Julia Lovemore who in June, 2012, killed her 6 week old daughter by shoving pages of the bible down the child’s throat because she wanted her to ‘absorb’ the books message of love.
Victoria Soliz who in 2013 tried to drown her child because “Jesus told her to”
Levi Daniel Staver who in 2013 stabbed his grandmother to death because “Archangel Michael told him to do it.”
Tammi Estep who in 2013 stabbed her husband to death because “Jesus and Mary told me to kill him because he is Satan’s spawn!”
Ashby Nickell Boulware who in 2015 choked his three dogs to death because “Yhwh told him to do it”
Stephon Lindsay who in 2016 murdered his baby daughter because:
You’re on fire JZ! Christianity isn’t responsible whenever someone claims “Jesus told me to do it.”
So the questions to you:
What does Octavia need?
What would you say to her?
What would you say at the children’s funeral?
Ah, Christianity isn’t respoinsible.
I see.
Great retort.
If Octavia had said, “John Zande told me to kill my kids” would that prove your book is useless?
Answer the other questions please.
Answer it? LOL, Okay…
“Avoid religion. Look at what it has caused. If you think you hear voices in your head, seek medical attention.”
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/abraham_1_zpspzayzjwz.png
No, Dolt. The other three questions.
Answered.
Perhaps now you’ll address all the cases I have detailed where people have murdered their children (and dogs) because they believed your god, Yhwh, had told them to?
Oh, don’t bother, you already have, haven’t you. They were mistaken.
Thoroughly persuasive argument there, John. Highly compelling.
Is that what you would say at their funerals?
“They were mistaken”
So, tell me, what makes you right, and them wrong?
What makes your “opinion,” John, any more valid than, say, Stephon Lindsay’s?
He said he heard Yhwh.
Have you ever heard Yhwh speak, John?
And perhaps, John, you can explain why you and your daughter are so seemingly obsessed with death and suicides.
I know Christianity is a Death Cult, but you two seem utterly and hopelessly engrossed in the subject.
You did not answer the questions.
Your doctrine has no answers.
You continue to be a windbag.
That’s all.
Answered. Would you like me to repeat it for you?
Now, John, please address the question put to you.
What makes your “opinion,” John, any more valid than, say, Stephon Lindsay’s?
He said he heard Yhwh.
Literally, he heard the voice of Yhwh.
Yes or No: Have you ever heard Yhwh speak, John?
What makes your opinion more valid than Stephon Lindsay’s?
Yes or No, John: Have you ever heard Yhwh speak?
I’ve heard the voice of John Zande. Isn’t that the same thing?
I’ll take that to be a “No, I have never heard Yhwh speak to me.”
So John, shouldn’t Christians be rallying around Lindsay, celebrating his remarkable communion with your god, Yhwh?
Just because Yhwh told him to kill his 20-month-old daughter means nothing, does it. Devine Command Theory, which you believe in, says whatever Yhwh orders is good and moral.
So, John, why aren’t you celebrating this man who Yhwh has communicated with?
If you spoke at the funeral for that child, would you shout, “Hallelujah! Lindsay obeyed our god, Yhwh!”
Again, and simply, I do not have to justify the behavior of every person who claims to have received a message from God.
You haven’t made any point.
You’re still a windbag.
Why don’t you believe Lindsay’s testimony, John?
Can you even fathom how strong that man’s faith is?
He said he didn’t want to do it, but Yhwh told him it was necessary.
Faith is to be celebrated, isn’t it?
Great faith, like Lindsay’s, should be venerated.
I understand why you advocate for Lindsay’s faith. It parallels Atheism. It makes personal convictions supreme.
Christianity is not that arbitrary.
Am I advocating for Lindsay’s actions?
Like Octavia Rogers, Dena Schlosser, Deanna Lajune LeNay, Andrea Yates, Otty Sanchez, Julia Lovemore, Victoria Soliz, Levi Daniel Staver, Tammi, Ashby Nickell Boulware, and every other religiously inspired murderer, I think he was insane.
You, though, don’t.
To you, this man demonstrated remarkable faith… the same faith-test imposed on Abe.
So Yhwh wanted the kid dead. What should you care, John?
Devine Command Theory explains it perfectly.
So, again, please do a post where you celebrate Lindsay’s remarkable display of Christian faith.
I’ll look forward to reading it.
Blow wind!
You do believe in Devine Command Theory, don’t you, John?
So, what should you care that Yhwh ordered this kid killed?
Please organise these thoughts into a post. I really want to read it.
Whooooooosh.
And there you go again, describing the sound you hear as the last remnants of your dignity as a man flies out the window.
Whooooooosh!
Whoooooooooooooooooooosh!
Actually, could you do a post where you detail what you’d say at this child’s funeral?
I’d be very interested to read it.
John, why are you determined to avoid any examination of how well or poorly you arrived at your claims? If your claims have merit, then why not demonstrate how and why they do? Or do you already realize that your beliefs that inform these claims are incompatible with other beliefs you hold for other claims?
Why won’t either of you tell me what you’d say to a child murderer? Why won’t you tell me what you would say at the child’s funeral?
Octavia Rogers murdered in Yhwh’s name. She was a Christian zealot.
You’ve heard (twice) what I’d say…. I’d like to now hear what you would say at the funeral.
Who are you to say Octavia was a Christian? LOLOLOLO!
You’re the guy who flips out when anyone describes Atheism as anything other than a void.
Octavia Rogers: Mom Who Fatally Stabbed Sons Screamed About Religion.
Perhaps you should also see her Facebook Christian posts. She loved Yhwh, and he spoke to her.
Right.
That settles it doesn’t it?
Give me a second and I’ll post something on Facebook about how John Zande is a windbag.
From The Gospel Herald:
So, you’re regretting using her as an example. I can understand that.
But then again, what do you care, John?
If Yhwh told her to murder her kids then it’s all good, right?
Devine Command Theory.
So, when you write your post on what you’d say at the funerals, celebrating Octavia’s Christian faith, I’ll read it with great enthusiasm.
Whooosh.
I’m done.
You’re not even TRYING to respond to my comments.
You’re a meaningless noise.
I answered your question.
You never answered mine.
Goodbye.
Because that has nothing to do with the criticism of your post. It’s simply a diversion. When asked why you don’t answer simple questions directly related to your post,this is the kind of diversionary tactic you use. No matter what answer ensues from us you still avoid answering the simple questions. We both know this. So it leaves the question dangling: why do you do this?
Because my questions matter more than your criticism. Did you forget that this is my blog? You opted to not offer a eulogy for the dead kids. Fair enough. You don’t have anything in your void anyway.
This entire post was an answer to JZs question. I know you’re a fan of totalitarianism, but you don’t get to dictate the conversation parameters here Dear Leader.
Wrong post, John.
Yeah, void… it’s not like I’ve any experience at the eulogy thing working at a hospice… After every death I just shrug my shoulders and say, “Next.”
Good grief but you a special piece of work, filled to the brim with so much pious hubris, deceit, and disdain when criticized for making claims that are empty of knowledge value and called on it.
I’m not the one insisting I’m content free. I take you at your word and you get all bent out of shape.
Ditch naturalism. It’s useless in discussions about real life.
Every time you sum up your opponent’s point, you don’t ‘take people at their word’. You warp it intentionally and misrepresent it. That’s why you consistently get it flat out wrong. One might be tempted to take this as a clue that one’s power to summarize is in need of a major adjustment. But not you, JB; you NEED to misrepresent to make your own look better. That’s pathetic.
I never have and never would claim to be ‘content free’. Unlike you, however, I don’t add a great big wallop of superstitious and pious nonsense to my dealings with the world and pollute my caring and compassion and understanding of other people’s circumstances and suffering with this dysfunctional, reality-denying addition you do. I have just a tad more respect for real people than that.
Let me sum up my opponent’s point:
“Waaaah! Waaaaah! You always twist my words! Waaaah!”
Your responses are still standing. You’ve not been edited or deleted. If Go back and read your rants about atheism being ‘content free’. Go back and view your outrage when I ‘superimpose’ anything on top of atheism. You’ve thrown gazillions of words at me explaining your views and I am wrong EVERY time I try to restate you. Maybe…just maybe…you are a crappy communicator?
Floor is still open if you want to demonstrate the power of your doctrine for something other than unhinged cry-fests.
That’s quite a rant, John. You’re coming across as somewhat unhinged, and angry. This, self-evidently, is interferring with your ability to think rationally, and act soundly.
To repeat, for the thousandth time, a-theism is content free. Get over it.
Feel free, however, to attack Humanism all you like. It has plenty of content for you to sling your spit at.
Whoooooooooosh!
Get with Tildeb and explain that atheism is content free. Then at least when you blow I hear the shutters banging.
Can you really be this obtuse? No. You’re just churlish. Yes, atheism is content free. It’s simply a statement about a lack of belief in gods or a god. But from that simple fact, you load it up with your own bullshit, misinterpret it to mean that an atheist’s opinions and beliefs are therefore claimed to be content free, and use this gross distortion to divert any criticism of your own faith-based beliefs misrepresented to be knowledge claims from legitimate criticism. That’s so transparently dishonest, so blatantly false, that it can only be an intentional misrepresentation.
Rather than deal openly and honestly with this mistake of misrepresenting others and correct your own underhanded behaviour, you then become like a spoiled two year old and accuse me of whining because I have actually dared to confront and challenge this intentional misrepresentation you commit over and over again. So, according to you, either i go along with your lie or I’m whining if I don’t. Oh look; this choice has nothing to do with you. The problem remains with those damned atheists. What diversion?
Is this how you think you should love your neighbour, JB? Is this the kind of dishonest, disrespectful, deceitful treatment of others you think is made manifest and morally good by your belief in some god? Is this how you define ethical behaviour for your children to emulate, by lying, deceiving, misrepresenting, and then blaming someone else for your childish and churlish behaviour?
Nice.
What a fine example you set for an adult conversation that involves disagreement. Your behaviour here stains all your claims about having access through your religious beliefs to some objective moral standard that atheists don’t. You’re just a spoiled little shit and project this shit on to others in some pathetic attempt to avoid being responsible for your own contemptible behaviour.
Dry your eyes, Dear Leader.
What deceitful treatment have I made manifest? Do you even remember?
Remind me of this disrespectful, deceitful misrepresentation and I’ll respond to that. Specify the ‘contemptible behaviour’ I’ve avoided taking responsibility for. What, specifically, has got your underwear in such a knot today?
(Now, if your response is another long winded diatribe about my churlishness, I’m going to go back to saying ‘Whaaaaaaaa’…)
Your spiteful and immature behaviour towards my comments has initiated good reasons for my change in tone. You don’t deserve any more respect because you can’t handle it.
For example, you could try reading the actual criticisms raised about your posts, read and comprehend what has actually been written by other actual people about your posts and comments and stop creating, inserting, replacing, and then relying on your misrepresentations. Novel idea, I know. I’ve only said it a few dozen times.
Now you feign surprise that anyone could question the sincerity of your misrepresentations and demand that everything already written be rewritten… without too many words, of course. Gee, I wonder why? Oh right… so you can complain about its form and then redefine all of them to be ‘waaa’ or ‘whoosh’ without ever having to actually deal with the dishonesty you actually and regularly practice. You won;t do that because you’re too immature, JB. YOU refuse to take responsibility for your actions and will spend your efforts to blame everyone else for not agreeing with you and not accepting your deceitful claims. What you won’t do is be honest and hold an adult conversation.
I can’t have an adult conversation when you’re crying like this.
You’ve already told me I’m horrible. I get it. I really do. I really, really do. Another dozen paragraphs about my deplorable behavior will not serve to convince me further. I embrace my despicable character.
Can you give me one specific example from the copious transgressions I have perpetrated?
I will.
Just in this thread you claimed only theists can find marriage meaningful.
In fact, there are your exact words:
This is the type of juvenile nonsense Tildeb is referring to… and it goes on, and on, and on.
You really are pathetic.
Windbag,
Where in the statement did I claim ONLY theists find marriage meaningful? You’re hanging claims on me that I didn’t make. You don’t see me crying about it though…
This is the kind of juvenile nonsense Tildeb is referring to…and it goes on, and on, and on.
Pretty much there in black and white, isn’t it?
Here’s a suggestion, John. If you continually find yourself being embarrassed and ashamed of your words, as you do, then perhaps you should think first before banging away at your keyboard in fits of uncontrolled rage.
Windbag,
The word ‘ONLY’ does not appear in my statement. It’s pretty much NOT there in black and white.
Feel free to post an actual example of my mistreatment. Maybe get with Tildeb and decide which of my many evils is the most damning.
Yep, it’s all there. That whole second part really digs your grave.
Sorry.
There’s a new post, JZ. Post your grievance there. First, I recommend a refresher course in the English language.
Go blow your noisy wind on the most recent post.
I winced a little at the animated loop, but I don’t remember it as standing out in the context of the movie. However, I have blogged about my concern over this sort of thing in the past…
While spanking Tinkerbell seems mildly distressing to my Disney sensibilities, I don’t know that I would call it fiendish.
🙂
It’s totally out if context from the movie…
You know there’s a lot of implications in being called fiendish. Seems to almost imply there is some standard by which fiendish-ness might be determined.
That picture is fiendish, asshole.
lol. What’s more offensive? A drawing–or being called an asshole?
Your priorities are similar to ISIS: pictures are VERY serious!
I bet the Cheerleader would flip over this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Lady-Cottingtons-Pressed-Fairy-Book/dp/1570360626/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=5ZSB0ECJTQJ00Z7R4ASR