Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)
Offline Joshua Ryan Dellinger is a blackmailer a liar and a stalker? A Christian defender who claims to agree with RRS? A philosophy student that's a product of a Christian Southern education?
If you're a Christian who's happy to see Joshua Ryan Dillinger willing to do whatever it takes, including lie, to stand up for Jesus, you should also know that Joshua has attacked Republicans for attacking gay marriage. (story here)
Over the last 24 hours, Kelly, myself, and all of you have been under threat from Joshua Ryan Dellinger a soon to be graduate of UNCC who has said...
I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.
So here it is, the public response on behalf of our radio show. I will waste 30 minutes of my time succumbing to your blackmail threat, you win, harraser. In order to do so I will be posting Kelly's response to you so as to save me time. Kelly wasted 30 minutes last night responding to you, and I refuse to double up with more wasted time over a simple blackmail threat. The following is the private message she sent to you through nowpublic.com, I am posting the content of your letter only because it's so similar to what you posted in public and because you've threatened us.
[edit in after the fact, I did in fact waste about an hour on this. Consider your blackmail/ultimatum effective, ya fucking asshole!]
Before I go on, you should know that if you had actual stones you and your powerful would arrange a text debate here with the community in which some of the radio co-hosts would be likely to weigh in. We'd probably even give you a thread to just go crazy in without rules, seeing as how there's no fucking way you'd be able to function within the rules. Or better yet, you and your team would just start a thread in athest vs theist like the rest of the people with a fucking clue.
"Let me begin by saying I don't expect you to respond. RRS has a way of disregarding its more equipped and capable challengers. I have written before only to be flatly overlooked. This fact signifies only cowardice on the part of RRS. Taking someone like Dawkins (who has perpetually declined to debate more intelligent adversaries) as an exemplar, I don't suppose I should be surprised."
Kelly says...
Well, I have no idea who you are, and who exactly has disregarded you, but I am certainly not personally responsible for that. I do not intend to defend Dawkins, but just since I'm here, you're not accurately representing his position. He does take debates (although I don't feel it is his strong suit), just not with creationists. Frankly, it is intellectually vacuous and doesn't deserve his time.
"I have observed the RRS for some time, taking note of the various fallacies that are routinely decried and then mercenarily employed."
Kelly says...
Such as?
"My question is this: do you really want to help others be freed from the grip of religion? If so, it would seem that you (and others) should be a leading example. As such, you are constrained to operate solely within the strictures of logical, coherent, legitimate argumentation. I do not see this taking place, and this is most likely why RRS is the laughing stock of most erudite circles. Yes, you have Dennett and Dawkins. Neither are taken very seriously by even budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology."
Kelly says...
Yes; and no, I'm not. I'm constrained to operate solely in the way that I determine, and you are free to criticize it as you see fit. I know many in the "erudite" circles who respect us and realize that our purpose is not necessarily the same as theirs, and that our audience is not the same, either. It takes all types to appeal to a varied populace.
As far as Dennett and Dawkins, they are widely regarded as excellent in their respective fields except in religious circles, so I'm assuming that by "budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology" you mean dilettantes who don't know their names.
"If you wanted to appeal through authority or popularity to young, impressionable types, why not employ the assistance of Quentin Smith? Quite simply put, I believe he would remain parsecs away from this site and all its stated goals, most chiefly owing to the extremely poor argumentation (rank ad hominems abounding) and sub-par presentation."
Kelly says...
I have no idea who that is, either. I cannot make any statement on your opinion of his potential reaction to us as a group. I also would like to remind you that an insult is not necessarily an ad hom. I can critique an argument and then insult somebody as long as the insult isn't taking the place of a valid counterpoint. In case you need an example:
1: Yahweh exists.
2: Prove it. I have seen no evidence and besides, he's logically incoherent.
1: I just know it. I've seen people change and I feel him in my heart.
2: That's not evidence. You're a moron. (not an ad hom--just an insult)
1. Yahweh exists.
2. Well, you're a moron. (ad hom)
"Would you engage in argumentation with William Lane Craig? No, I do not think so."
Kelly says...
I certainly would. He refuses to debate anybody without a doctorate. Bitch at him.
"Browbeating teenagers and lesser minds into conformity with your own agendas is not only vile - it is the very practice which you deprecate."
Kelly says...
Well, that's not what we do, so I don't get your point. I have no "agenda" and I can't "indoctrinate" somebody into not believing in god. I can't scare them with the fear of hell and eternal punishment or a sadistic voyeur watching my every move. Not the same.
I also think that men like Ergun Caner and Matt Slick would find it amusing that they are considered either teenagers or our mental inferiors.
"I would presume that since you are so secure in your current belief that you have answered all the questions that standardly assail the theologian, the philosopher, and the armchair enquirer. I include among these all cosmological arguments, all crucial matters of epistemology and metaphysics, and a comprehensive certainty concerning the methods of science. Your positivist positions notwithstanding, I ask you: what is your response to the Kalam cosmological argument? If you are unfamiliar with this, I should say I am shocked. One who not only eschews a particular position but vehemently seeks its destruction should certainly be expected to be familiar with it."
Kelly says...
I have no belief, but anyway...I have answered all the questions that pertain to the necessity of belief in a god that I have encountered to my satisfaction. Does that mean I know everything or think that I do? No. That is patently ridiculous. Nevertheless, one is forced to make a decision based on the evidence that one has at the time, and if one is honest, one will remain open to new evidence as it appears.
The Kalaam cosmological argument is just a sophisticated reworking of parts of Aquinas' cosmological argument. It is practically the same, just clothed in jargon and terminology designed to impress people who don't know better. His whole impossibility of an actual infinity is the best thing he has going, but that is not from a mathematical standpoint--it is solely because we have trouble wrapping our minds around that concept.
BTW, you can save the arrogance for somebody else. The first rebuttal I ever wrote was 4 years ago in response to my former pastor and largely dealing with that argument. I wrote about ten pages on it.
"I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles. No self-respecting scientist (who at best can provide explanations and descriptions) would ever pretend to the position of prescriptive moral arguments (I suppose you've solved Hume's is-ought problem as well?)."
Kelly says...
We don't need to convince those in academia--they already know. We are aiming for a different target. The fact that we are the number one atheist website in the world seems to indicate that we've hit it.
Also, point me to one instance of me personally employing the naturalistic fallacy or using a prescriptive moral argument.
"If you and your ilk can maturely and intrepidly accept a mutually beneficial, constructive, and - yes, even necessary - discourse, I invite you cordially to attend several online discussions on the existence of God, the role of religion, and the issue of Islam. Be warned: we are not simple Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort types."
Kelly says...
I have no time, nor the desire, to do so. You have not fooled me into believing that you are an atheist, or even close to one, so your attempt at subterfuge has failed.
Just FYI--I find Islam to be a disgusting barbaric religion that is ATM an even bigger threat than christianity.
"If you accept our challenge (re: if your positions are developed, defensible, and justified) then I expect your rational (toss in mature as well) response. If not, then I am sorry to say I am not the least bit surprised. Dawkins et al have misrepresented doxastic beliefs concerning religion as merely the outmoded and irrational trademark of the uncritical and credulous masses. Pity that intellectualism (I am being quite generous with the term) of today has become alienated from its better half - integrity."
Kelly says...
I am not a participant in your pedantic nonsense peppered with rhetoric, therefore I will neither be participating or forfeiting. You can take your proposition, complete with its condescending and self-aggrandizing nonsense to somebody else. Perhaps they have nothing better to do.
Kelly
NOTICE: This communication may not be reprinted unless in its entirety.
Creative Commons License Non-Commercial Non-derivative Attribution
HERE'S MY BRIEF RESPONSE...
Through the last two years I have grown numb to theistic argument with people who I know to be dishonest and seem to embrace the character of the conman. I will take public debates from conmen, like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron because they are very visible. The name Joshua Ryan Dellinger doesn't come to mind when I think of conmen worthy of wasting time on. At this point, our radio show has not held a recorded interview since September of '07. None have been recorded with atheists or theists, and this is due to a sound problem we can't seem to resolve.
We've been too busy on other areas of importance to even focus on it, so put that in your pipe and smoke it a bit when you go slander our name and tell others we refused to debate you. As for this refusal... to be honest, if we had recording capability we may have accepted, Kelly loves ripping the heads off of people like you... me personally I'm tired of your ilk. The dishonesty, arrogance, and ignorance seethes off of your post. The holier than thou attitude, the whining about the rules you think we break on our forum as you systematically break almost all of them. (sock-puppet on an anonymous name, not debating the points merely launcing an attack to debate points, trolling, bullying (blackmailer!), and the slander/libel is bound to come if you haven't already crossed that line. I'd rather know nothing about you until we get on the phone, and find out who you are in real time... if I knew ahead of time (and in this case, I do) I would want to cancel you in my area and anywhere in my vicinity.
At this point for me personally, I am interested in talking to theists I know nothing about, or at least don't dislike yet. (I know too much about you already, that I already want to spit on your face, and I don't like that feeling, nor do I seek to purposefully subject myself to it). Or I like speaking to people who seem to have a modicum of personal honesty, the type of person that can say "hey, you're right about that."
Those theists are hard to come by, but the conversations are more enjoyable, I don't feel like smashing my face into a brick when they're over, and there's a chance I might actually smile. When the show is back to recording interviews, I will continue to seek those people out. Don't worry though, don't burn your bridge, and count yourself out... Rook and Kelly love picking on know it alls who don't know it all. You have a chance with them, calling me out (on your crimes) will only make me give them a weird look when they ask me to book you. The blackmail/ultimatum will only make Rook and Kelly want to smash your face with a brick, so flip the attitude, and maybe you'll have a chance, twerp.
HERE ARE THE COMMENTS JOSHUA RYAN DELLINGER MADE IN OTHER THREADS NOT PERTAINING TO THIS.
THIS IS NOW THE THREAD THAT JOSHUA RYAN DELLINGER CAN COMMENT IN WITHOUT REGISTERING FOR AN ACCOUNT. THEY REMAIN UNCHALLENGED FOR OUR MEMBERS TO LAUGH AT (or respond to) IN ALL THEIR GLORY. I've put my thoughts [in red].
This comment left in a thread about our appearance on Tombcast Podcast:
Brian,
I understand that you do not debate within e-mail correspondence. I also understand that
1. Slander/Libel [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
3. Trolling [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
4. Abuse [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
5. Bullying [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again][you also posted twice under two different names:sockpuppet against rules]
are categorically disallowed. I am attempting to inquire, then, in exactly what form you will allow an official debate between you, other colleagues of your choosing, myself, and one friend. I have written many times to no avail, and am beginning to wonder if the RRS is actually capable of responding to those who have more to do than merely stroke your egos. This is no vicious attack - this is a serious challenge.Sincerely (again),
Joshua Ryan Dellinger
P.S. Additionally, let me add that I believe the RRS to be guilty of every last practice they forbid. Such tyranny should not be. PLEASE NOTE that I am not baiting you - I am simply supplying criticism (mild at that) and one again inviting you, as a worthy opponent, to a more challenging debate. I am no teenager nor philosophical freshman.[You're only four years older than a philosophical freshman fwiw, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why you've turned us off so much, you do act like a child. But so do many Pastors.] Please accept and retain your honor. [Dipshit, a debate with you is not what retains our honor, now how bout proving you're worth any honor at all, and start posting in our atheist vs theist section, within the rules?
Let's assume for a minute that we do break all of the above rules. You realize that there are dozens of others who also break all of those rules? That to be hypocrites we'd have to ban the others but leave ourselves? Since Kelly, Rook, Hamby, and I have taken more control over who gets banned only one person has been banned. One person, spamming off topic views named Euthymius was recently banned, and that's the only one I know of in a month or so. He was previously banned under a different name, a major no-no.
This comment left in a thread about my suit with Uri Geller:
Submitted by Is This One Free? (not verified) on February 17, 2008 - 6:59pm.Dear "Sapient"
Arrogant? Most assuredly. "Wise"? Perhaps "sophomoric" is more apt. But lest I dip into the "anals" (your word for annals, I believe? Please don't try to pass it off as a witty intention) of all ad hominems, and thus reduce myself to the RRS level, I would like to formally apprise you of both my identity and my offer.
I have written several times to both you and Kelly. Each time I have congenially extended a challenge to you and her. This would consist in a mannerly and mature debate on the existence of God[start acting mature, and then I might believe that] (proofs for the necessary existence of a creator being), the role of religion in society today, and other topics which we may or may not address given your consent and preferences.
I am well aware of the practices and methodologies of the RRS. [But not well aware enough to know that we haven't recorded a show for 5 months, and mention it in almost every webcam appearance we make. You also aren't familiar enough to know that the proper way to attain this debate would be to take it to our community and provide such good argumentation that our community would force us to have you on our show or face their own wrath/suspicions.] They include not only genetic fallacies, misattribution of causality, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominems, ad populums, appeals to authority (and even a few argumentum ad baculi), and a dozen other faulty and ignoble acts. [for the record... comedy isn't a logical fallacy. Jon Stewart is not ad hom-ing Bush. Our ridicule and humor at your imaginary friend's expense doesn't = fallacy] I agree with your critics who claim that you are "philosophical dilettantes". I have witnessed nothing worth commendation nor even toleration[Mindcore: your turn] , yet I have tallied a grand litany of offenses.
You should know that I am not a religious person[right, you're a "Christian" we've heard that one before]. I agree that religion is, overall, deleterious in effect. However, I am most certainly a principles debater who will not stoop to the contemptible methods that you and your associates seem to espouse. Therefore recognize, if you will, that I am not merely some "religious quack"[you're right, I'd say you're about par for the course. Falwell and Phelps, those are quacks. You're more of the typical "I know I'm right, and everyone else is being rude and using logical fallacies" type.] seeking your destruction, but rather a concerned logician who is appalled by the rank poorness of your arguments. [a logician who claims to be well aware of how we work yet hasn't the slightest clue that we aren't recording shows right now and haven't for 5 months.... some logician]
You, Dawkins, et al have made theistic beliefs the province of fools, backwards bumpkins, and the undereducated. This shameful misrepresentation is a foul vice on your part, and worthy of nothing but execration. Should you accept an actual challenge - that is - a debate with others who are not only your equals [there isn't a theist in the world that enters the scale of equal to us in the logic category, sorry]but quite possibly your logical superiors, perhaps you may earn something of a position of respect. As of yet, you have only earned laughable scorn.
I do, therefore, officially invite you (once again) to a constructive debate to be held between your crowd (specifically, you and whomever you choose) and my own. I think you'll find that we are not easy victories such as Ray Comfort and a handful of laypersons. We are, rather, philosophy students of diligent study, and just the sort to dispatch your pitifully irrational positions. [You're invited to have that debate on our Atheist Vs. Theist forum, but I won't be holding your hand like I am now.]
You should know that RRS is not the venerable social liberator you may hold it to be, but is rather scoffed at and derided (and the butt of several jokes within intellectual circles) by those actually disciplined in logic and argumentation.[Let's hear who they are and what their arguments are, ad hom, I mean Joshua Ryan Dillinger] You are not philosophers, mind you, nor admirable positivists. You are sophists, pseudo-intellectual bullies, and self-glorifying, swaggering blowhards.
Please do accept the challenge. I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.[emphasis on blackmail paragraph is mine]
Sincerely,
Joshua Ryan Dellinger
P.S. If you do in fact wish to condemn amenable adolescents' souls to immortal hellfire or, alternatively, instantly liberate their consciousnesses for the rest of their physical persistence, you might first do a little research into exactly what "blasphemy" consists of. Here, I'll spare you the effort:[Thanks Pastor]
Jesus mentions a sin that is unforgivable in Matt. 12:31-32 and calls it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But what exactly is this unforgivable sin? For that, we need to look at the context.
Matt. 12:22-32 says, "Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons." 25And knowing their thoughts He said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 26"And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27"And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Consequently they shall be your judges. 28"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," (All Scripture quotes are from the NASB).
Let me review this section briefly. In verse 22, Jesus healed a blind and dumb man. The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" (v. 24). Jesus responds by saying that a kingdom divided will fall (vv. 25-28) and how the devil must first be bound before you can plunder his house (v. 29). In verses 31-32, He states that blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.
By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable. But why? We can find a clue by looking at when Jesus began His ministry.
Jesus stated that His baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness," (Matt. 3:15). The word "fulfill" should cause us to think of the Old Testament. Basically, Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the Old Testament requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:21; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest. According to the Old Testament, in order for a priest to be consecrated as a priest, He had to be washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:15) and anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16). Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3).
The oil is representative of the Holy Spirit who descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Matt. 3:16). It was after His baptism that He began His ministry and started performing miracles. He did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit who had come upon Him at His baptism. The Pharisees - who knew that Jesus' miracles validated His words and ministry (see John 11:45-48) - were attempting to discredit Jesus' Messiahship by saying that His works were by the devil and not by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit by whom Jesus performed His miracles. This is unforgivable because it struck at the very heart of the redemptive work of God in Christ. It struck at the very nature of Jesus’ ministry of redemption, testimony, and teaching. Jesus was ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit Himself, fulfilling the divine plan of God to provide a sacrifice for our sins (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The Pharisees were attributing this to demonic activity. This is a great blasphemy.
As for your very typical Christian attack on the Blasphemy Challenge... how ironic considering you did one of those typical dishonest Christian tactics of pretending to be on our side. As if we're fucking morons and are going to change everything about who we are because some Christian infiltrates, tells us to be nice to Christians, and pretends to be on our side the whole time. We're not idiots Joshua, find an idiot to debate, seems more your size.
Here was your quote ""I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles."
Agree with the RRS position, yet have picked apart the bible exactly as a Pastor would? Interesting.
Here is a response video on that issue for you to pray on, I mean think on... I mean prey on.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
Offline Now, does this mean with 100% certainty that we are absolutely sure nothing supernatural exists? Well, no, clearly not. It means at most that we have currently held no contact with anything of supernatural cause...something that violates the laws of physics, I mean.
This is my position, except that instead of the phrase "of supernatural cause", I would just say "supernatural", since I would wait for something supernatural before I speculated about its cause.
Now you may freely state that there has been no "effective" supernatural event in your lifetime, or the lifetime of any humans. But perhaps many more things of very natural quality have likewise not been observed. Surely you wouldn't say "there are no aliens" or "there are no flying humans in the entire universe".
No, I wouldn't say those things, and I agree that it's safe to say that we have no experienced anything supernatural and there are a great number of things yet to experience in the natural.
1) Beauty qua concept. Are concepts then immaterial or material? If they are immaterial and they affect behavior, then you are positing something entirely different than physicalism. I'm sure you see why.
I do see why, and having seen evidence of firing synapses, I consider concepts ultimately material.
2) Beauty qua behavior. [...]
I was obviously not clear, because this section addresses something I didn't mean to say. When I said "indirectly describes", I meant that "beauty" is the word you use to describe the result of someone deciding that something is beautiful. Decision is an observable behaviour. The wording was probably confusing.
I'm sure you've also noticed that teleology has been reintroduced lately by this whole genetic argument.
Are we talking "The Selfish Gene"-type purpose?
If we want to speak strictly of genetics - all things genetic being of course good - then I think we should include Hamer's book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes. It seems if it's genetic and we're exalting genetics here, then we can't really be so very upset about this matter, can we?
No more than we could be upset about having an appendix, I guess. Unless it gets infected - that's nasty.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:I think RRS has misdefined themselves in another way. You people are not "atheists" alone, but are better understood as "antitheists".I agreed with you above.
Also, I can't respond for the RRS, really - I hope you don't think that's a dodge, I just don't know them personally.
"Antitheist" is not quite right, either, as it indicates a position actively against theists. I agree there may be a bit of confusion concerning the mode of lack of belief, vis-a-vis an intentional object. But, due to the vagaries of the english language, antitheist is completely different from atheist, in either mode.
However, I definitely agree with Joshua that the root of lack of belief is different based on the intentional object, or absence thereof.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Caution, use carefully under supervision ! 
"How silly? PLEASE outline the differences (for they must be vast to warrant a "silly" comment) between "effectively" non-existent and non-existent for us. I believe you'll end up back at "if it can't be measured, it doesn't mean it's not there." That brings you to the agnostic atheist position. I don't know, but I don't have enough evidence to believe. Evidence like "effective" existence"
--Okay. Well let's take a look at the language here. You yourself admit there are differences between non-existent and "effectively" non-existent, although you do equate them (I'll show how this isn't necessarily an admission of identity). First, why supply the modifier "effectively" if in fact the "effectively" non-existent is simply the non-existent? Maybe this point is too subtle, so let's just progress to the main point:
"Effectively" non-existent means of course that, so far as we know as concerns empirical observation, all sensibility, and any sort of causal efficacy, the entity in question does not exist. This is hasty, and completely immodest. I may say: "Well, in my life, honest politicians are 'effectively' non-existent - as I have never witnessed any effect of them". Or any other sort of example, of course, if that one rankles you. Now to say something is "effectively" non-existent already admits the criterion: that of causal efficacy or evidence. It is to say: if it doesn't have any effects, it may as well not exist. This is at most a statement of principle. To make the second claim, that something does in fact fail to be in existence, is to go much, much further than you are allowed. In order to make this bold claim, you would first have to disprove the existence of the object in question. Given that we are speaking of the supernatural, there is of course no way (short of miracles) to observe any effects (especially for matters of deism or pantheism or panentheism). Now, does this mean with 100% certainty that we are absolutely sure nothing supernatural exists? Well, no, clearly not. It means at most that we have currently held no contact with anything of supernatural cause...something that violates the laws of physics, I mean. If you should like to say that if the proverbial hand of god came down from the proverbial heavens right now and smacked you, then disappeared, that this was a "natural" event, I would indeed question your terms, as I question Kant's and Hume's before him. It seems to me that although this event would have manifested within the natural world, it would surely not be explicable within it. But that is another issue, and we needn't address it.
This matter of making existential negations, then, is quite problematic even from the point of logic. In logic, there is the very well-received principle that you cannot prove universal negations. Given the limits of our observation in both spatial and temporal locales, it is only a principle of logic to note that the phrase "there exist no X such that every X is an object with Y and Z properties" can have no fixed truth value. Now you may freely state that there has been no "effective" supernatural event in your lifetime, or the lifetime of any humans. But perhaps many more things of very natural quality have likewise not been observed. Surely you wouldn't say "there are no aliens" or "there are no flying humans in the entire universe". Maybe you will say those things, and maybe our conversation will again fail to progress. I think it only a matter of logic versus illogic at this point, with your side unfortunately carrying the vice.
"Beauty is a concept. I'm willing to concede that God is a concept that effects the causal chain, sure. Leprechans, Zeus, Mars, Amon Ra, and Marduk would, in other times, apply equally to your argument, though. The only difference is that in this period in history, the concept of God is more prevelant than Zeus et al. The word "beauty" also really describes a human behaviour indirectly, that being the judgement of what is and is not beautiful. So we're still in the realm of the natural with beauty, whereas the concept of God is fed strictly by religious text."
--Thank you for that, again. I do cherish your rudimentary expositions. Two parts, then:
1) Beauty qua concept. Are concepts then immaterial or material? If they are immaterial and they affect behavior, then you are positing something entirely different than physicalism. I'm sure you see why. So either concepts are physical and determinism is saved or concepts are not physical and we have some really spooky dualism on our hands. Or you can be an epiphenomenalist and say that beauty somehow ratchets up out of very physical things, but that of course again doesn't really get rid of the emergence of the immaterial from the material, does it?
2) Beauty qua behavior. Alright, well, ignoring the fact that you've now labeled beauty as both concept and behavior, the two being possibly compatible (the concept of behavior, I suppose?), let's examine this one. How exactly are we within the realm of the "natural" if in naturalist sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) we cannot have anything nonphysical affecting the physical? Is judgment a physical or nonphysical event? If it is the former then okay, you can go stand next to Kelly. If it is the latter, then I think you should analyze your concepts more thoroughly.
This matter of behaviorism, them. I'm more familiar with Quine lately than Skinner, given my conversion, but certainly you're aware of the extinction of most behaviorism in favor of cognitive science. The reasons for its demise are the problems that have cropped up within this discussion here. Treating "behavior" as a substantive, observable principle doesn't get you very far, for you still have to explain 1) how the behavior occurs and 2) what purpose it serves, if any.
I'm sure you've also noticed that teleology has been reintroduced lately by this whole genetic argument. Well, at least human life has a purpose again (contrary to the principles of science, mind you) -- albeit a very austere and pathetic one.
P.S. By the way: recently I noticed in my bathroom reading drawer an old magazine with some good points in it. If we want to speak strictly of genetics - all things genetic being of course good - then I think we should include Hamer's book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes. It seems if it's genetic and we're exalting genetics here, then we can't really be so very upset about this matter, can we? I suppose some invasive eugenics are in order if we want to truly eliminate this matter of theism. Any responses from the overlords?
Dear Joshua:
Many of us here are academics. Many of us are students, and a fair number of us have Masters and PhDs. While I have neither I feel qualified to say as a very promising student of biological anthropology, that you're just wrong when you say that Dennet and Dawkins aren't taken seriously. I have to agree with Kelly, however, that debate is not necessarily Dawkin's forte. On my point, however, I would advise you not to make assumptions you can't back up.
The teens I've spoken with here seem to have found solace in a community of freethinkers, who are in no way conformist. They seek advice from others who understand them, as most of us here did at their age. I'm not going to tell a kid they're not an atheist if the kid decides he/she "is" an atheist, whether or not I think they might be too young or inexperienced to know for sure. I think the best thing to do in this situation is give encouragement and support, especially if the kid doesn't get those things from their family and/or friends. I also don't assume that people younger than myself have lesser minds. I try to treat them like the equals they are.
How hard is it for people to accept that atheism does not require personal omniscience, or a computer library inside one's head? My answer to the Kalam argument is that it cannot presuppose a supernatural explanation, as you would then have to apply the argument to said supernatural cause. In other words, if God made everything, and nothing can be infinite, then who or what made God? This is one of the first questions most atheists have asked themselves and others since they were able to speak and comprehend language. The real travesty is that most kids who do ask this question are taught to stop asking it by the time they're in grade school.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Uhm... how so? I think you don't understand Heisenburg.
The act of observation affect the physical state of matter. Oberving an electron collapses its quantum waveform. This isn't a physical event. It's an informational event. It's not the physical interaction of observation. It's the act of observation. How is this not the immaterial (observation) affecting the material?
Thanks for the intelligent reply.
What do genotypes do? They are encoded with the information required to express a phenotype. They are the physical representation of that information. They themselves do not express the phenotype. They provide the code to create proteins, for instance. They themselves do not create the proteins. That is left to other mechanisms within the cell. They merely carry the code, the information.
This is like the magnetic polarity dots on a hard drive. A program is stored there, but it can't operate from there. It must first be read into a computer that implements the instruction set targeted by the program. You can't natively run a MIPS program on an X86, for instance. The information is useless without something to interpret that information.
The same is true of genes. They are completely senseless without the machinery of the cell to interpret them. They are encoded physically as seemingly-random sequences of amino acid pairs. For instance, the construction of the cell wall proteins are a function of the endoplasmic reticulum. Without that organelle, the code for constructing those proteins makes no sense.
If that argument is not successful (I doubt it will be-- I'm not good at explaining the subtleties of information theory), here's a more prosaic example, which I'm sure some philosopher has already rebutted.
Language is essentially a tool for the transmission of information. If I were to shout, "Hey! There's a spider on your shoulder!" you might whip around to try to look at your own shoulder, your heartbeat might increase in tempo, and so forth. Here, information has created a physical manifestation in the real world. An observable manifestation. (The example is lame. It's from The Kids In The Hall. Sorry.)
Ah! Sorry. My misunderstanding. I guess your words got in the way of my understanding.
You weren't arguing for God. You were merely arguing for the supernatural, by using a non-sequitur. My mistake.
Gotcha. You were merely looking for a label so you could process it through the secret philosophy decoder ring. (That was a little low. But it is funny. At least to me. I crack myself up.)
I believe that humans are wired a certain way, and are trained from birth to react to things in certain ways. We call some things "beautiful," and other things "ugly." This is one example among many. In any case, the fact that there is no one standard of beauty proves that the experience of beauty is subjective, as I said before. You could say it's a biochemical reaction to an outside stimulus (though that simplifies it tremendously). But it doesn't matter. It's still information affecting the physical, however subjective the reaction.
So, I'm mostly Humean in my understanding of subjective interpretation of and reaction to reality, and physicalist in my understanding of our observation of objective reality. So yes, I'd agree that the physicalist model is insufficent to describe our subjective experience of reality.
I'm still not sure how this lets in the supernatural, as you suggested in the quote above.
I don't believe I claimed the cause was part of the natural world. I just said that once 'it' occured within the natural world, it is part of the natural world. I left the antecedent of 'it' unclear. Sorry about that. If the cause is supernatural, but the effect is in the natural world, 'it' refers to the effect, not the cause. But I think you're about to address that point.
Very good!
This is exactly the case to which I referred. If we were ever an event within the natural world that was inexplicable with our current understanding of the natural world, we would first investigate our understanding of the natural world. If we could somehow prove that the event was impossible, and our experiments validated that view, then that event would by its existence provide evidence of a "supernatural" world that can somehow affect our natural world.
That's what I was trying (poorly, I guess) to get at. There's never been such an event. So far, we have been able to adequately explain the world around us using strictly naturalistic properties.
I believe I have. I'm sorry you feel it was a waste of time.
I get the feeling like you simply want to argue philosophy. That's too bad. The results of philosophy are only as good as its assumptions, and you (like many philosophers) seem to be about 100 years out of date. Your assumptions are faulty, and you refuse to even bother understanding why. I think you don't even really care-- the philosophical debate is more important than either the relevence or correctness of your assumptions, it seems.
Your ignorance of basic evolution and physics hobbles your ability to understand the flaws in your argument. That is too bad, as your analytic ability is fairly decent.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Joshua,
I have an honest question I'd like answered, if you'd deign.
What practical application does philosophy have?
I know the scientific method is an epistemology, so there's one. I know that the study of logic stemmed from philosophy. But other than that, what practical application does it have?
More specifically, what practical results have been derived from philosophy?
I ask this because, from what I've observed of philosophy, and philosophers, most like to argue, but really don't care much beyond that. There's a lot of discussion, with one person quoting Spinoza, and another Hume, someone else Nietzsche, and yet another Camus. But really, with so many schools of thought, and so much contradiction between them, is there anything practical at all?
It all seems like one big intellectual circle jerk to me. Is there any reason to suppose otherwise?
Not that it needs to be practical. As we discussed aesthetics before, just the shear joy of a well-argued point is as potent as a surprising and strong chess move.
[edit]
I'd like to point out that you definitely don't understand the science as well as you think you do. You demonstrate your ignorance in almost every post.
Here is yet another example of your ignorance, though, like your misuse of "penultimate question" (which does not mean "next to last question in the paragraph," but "next to last question," period) and subsequent rationalization, I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize your mistake.
Genetics and evolution are two distinct studies. Evolution operates on phenotypes, which are the expression of the information encoded in genotypes. Genetics is the study of DNA. The God Gene is a study of evolution's influence on certain individuals ability to feel "transcendent." Unfortunately, the evidence is that VMAT2 accounts for only about 1% variance in a specific psychological analysis. Although statistically significant, it doesn't seem to explain the widespread belief in God.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Hey, at least you argue from a position of thoughtfulness. The last post from Marty was "do you consider that statement absolute or relative?" Oh Marty, you're soooo smart.
Anyway ...
Here is exactly what would be relevant to discuss. You later on use the term "anti-theist", which I completely agree is a more accurate label for this group. In my case (for I represent only myself here) I would end up with the title "anti-supernaturalist" which isn't all that catchy, but it defines my position better.
Ah! You got cut off!
Don't be angry: I wanted into the fray, and figured you'd only answer if I gave you brief statements to dismantle. It was manipulative - I apologize.
I think so, yes. But you're asking someone to describe a feeling in that case. No reason nor rationale need be given for attraction or beauty. It would be more accurate to say "I feel that the poem is beautiful." Your use of "believe" there is certainly distinct from reasonable belief in something's existence.
I agree.
But these things do not take on the domineering aspect of religion. (Well, except economics - it's getting close.) My personal concern is very pragmatic, in that people's beliefs inform their decisions. When individuals believe in a vast array of highly improbable things including armageddon-type scenarios, and then vote, and they happen to be in the country with the most nuclear weapons ... it's my firm belief that a little cold rationality could help the decision process along there. But maybe I'm being optimistic.
True enough. I come from the position of never really having believed in deities the same way I've never really believed in leprechauns or the tooth fairy, so attempting to disprove, for instance, the tooth fairy, seems an unneccessary exercise. Hopefully that gives you an idea of what I mean when I use the word "belief".
I would love to dispatch that rung. Even given your assertion above that science is limited, I would contend that a hypothesis that weak is worth dispatching.
It can if it attacks (through discourse) the beliefs of individuals, and not announce that, as an extreme example, "all theists threaten national security". That would get them into hot water.
Positivism would be limited to the description of a person enjoying a novel and in determining how "enjoyment" manifests itself by neurons firing in the brain. The position that literary criticism is irrational is untenable, certainly. I would still say that the enjoyment of the poem is irrational, but that the irrational nature of enjoyment is not equivalent to "irrational belief".
I'm actually enjoying your new approach to discourse. I think we need to agree on terms before we can figure out where we actually agree or disagree (!)
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Of course it does. The statements aren't equivalent. I have a feeling I've miscommunicated, since I didn't mean to imply that the nature of the belief would be the same given familiarity with the intentional object. You're right, I wasn't familiar with intentionality, but it's not really that complicated.
I'm actually glad you clarified this - that's what I didn't understand at first. I completely agree that these types of belief are distinct and different.
So your problem with RRS's definition of belief is that it unites two seperate aspects of the meaning of the word belief?
I understand from that paragraph that you'd like to see the different aspects of belief expressly stated to avoid confusion, and increase the precision of the word when used. Am I wrong in summarizing that way?
To the best of my knowledge, this was a facetious assertion by Christopher Hitchens. But it's Christopher Hitchens. He'd probably never admit he was making a joke. It's part of the man's charm.
I agreed with you above.
Also, I can't respond for the RRS, really - I hope you don't think that's a dodge, I just don't know them personally.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence