tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post422160259831406845..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Redneck AtheismPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29796588335060317962014-06-02T07:56:18.625-07:002014-06-02T07:56:18.625-07:00Dear Pac Man Sound Effect:
I see - the actual sta...Dear Pac Man Sound Effect:<br /><br />I see - the actual statement that this is what Galton did -- that he says this in his own words -- doesn't matter. That is: it doesn't matter if you read books - those books don't matter.<br /><br />Changing the subject doesn't impress me when it will simply start a new list of books you won't have read.<br /><br />God bless you. Please move along.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42014898035533006492014-05-31T20:38:16.301-07:002014-05-31T20:38:16.301-07:00"I know I said this already, but it's a s..."I know I said this already, but it's a same you don't read books."<br />this is funny coming from a guy who doesnt seem to know alot about the naturalistic fallacy,i really thought you were the smart one on this Blog Frank. Trying to connect evolution to eugenics is committing a naturalistic fallacy and Galton was clearly extremely stupid for trying to do so. Also like i said all those mass murders were committed by people that Phil Johnson claimed were "Darwinists" were actually people who believed in the philosophy of Jean Baptiste Lamarckwakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5333667269231270372014-05-31T12:29:33.235-07:002014-05-31T12:29:33.235-07:00Dear Pac Man Sound Effect:
I know I said this alr...Dear Pac Man Sound Effect:<br /><br />I know I said this already, but it's a same you don't read books.<br /><br />The term "eugenics" was coined by Galton in his book, <i>Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development</i>. It's on page 24 if you have a copy.<br /><br />DW Forrest establishes the link between <i>Origin of Species</i> and Galton in his biography, <i>Francis Galton: the life and work of a Victorian genius</i>. It's on page 84 if you have a copy.<br /><br />When you're ready to stop hurting yourself, let me know.<br /><br />FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83391873640157480982014-05-28T22:39:46.182-07:002014-05-28T22:39:46.182-07:00i was going for fozzie bear Frank
"Galton...i was going for fozzie bear Frank<br /><br />"Galton's views are almost entirely built on Darwin's theory"<br /> it commits a naturalistic fallacy, so it cannot be properly connected to darwinianism. Besides most of the big shot eugenists held to lamarckianism which was far more suited to their theories then darwinianism<br />wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20568398097678372072014-05-28T12:28:41.656-07:002014-05-28T12:28:41.656-07:00Dear Pac Man Sound Effect:
Eugenics as you and I ...Dear Pac Man Sound Effect:<br /><br />Eugenics as you and I know it was developed by Francis Galton in the mid/late 19th century. Darwin Origin of Species was published in 1859. Darwin was Galton's cousin; Galton's views are almost entirely built on Darwin's theory.<br /><br />Those are the historical facts. Please don't confuse Eugenics with Genocide.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33950685653069278582014-05-26T11:05:18.675-07:002014-05-26T11:05:18.675-07:00"However, no one can argue against the idea t..."However, no one can argue against the idea that it was Darwin's theories that led to the idea of eugenics. That is, the leap from natural selection to artificial selection based on "desireable" traits.<br /><br />And really, who's to say that the theories are "mis" applied in the case of eugenics, aside from the fact that the atheists/evolutionists don't want to be associated with the abominations that Darwinism led to? "<br />learn up on your history buddy eugenics existed long before Darwin, anyone who learned history can argue against such laughable nonsense. The Leap from natural to artifical was absurd to anyone who knows about the naturalstic fallacywakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-52554248624400616122010-03-05T16:56:43.000-08:002010-03-05T16:56:43.000-08:00I was trying to send you an email, but didn't ...I was trying to send you an email, but didn't know where to find it. Anyways, I've been trying to understand how I would as an atheist deal with the killings God commanded in the Old Testament. This is what I came up with. <br />http://chrisdeluna.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-i-were-atheistaccounting-for.htmlChrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09045435425352838499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59169423917230380852010-03-03T18:40:14.326-08:002010-03-03T18:40:14.326-08:00Yes, thanks for everyone's responses.Yes, thanks for everyone's responses.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57411525970626948122010-03-03T17:17:18.376-08:002010-03-03T17:17:18.376-08:00Thanks for the replies, guys!Thanks for the replies, guys!bassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12594589751557380792010-03-02T20:20:39.160-08:002010-03-02T20:20:39.160-08:00Additionally, Athiests treat Scripture as a single...Additionally, Athiests treat Scripture as a single book when, in fact, it is a collection of books written by many different authors.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15285043747501470199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50529555731819406862010-03-02T16:59:24.815-08:002010-03-02T16:59:24.815-08:00Mike: "Phil, what would be your reply to thei...<b>Mike:</b> <i>"Phil, what would be your reply to their, "you're using circular reasoning" charge? "</i><br /><br /><b>Stefan:</b> <i>"Basically Mike actually raises what for me is a key issue: we claim the Bible as our authority, as our rule of faith and practice, and the foundation of our doctrine; but the basis on which we attribute that authority to the Bible--its inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, etc.--itself comes from the Bible."</i><br /><br />I would ask, What higher authority is there? I.e., what is the highest authority in the universe, and how does the atheist know the answer to that question? What authority does he appeal to--and can he justify that belief without committing the same circularity he complains of?<br /><br />The atheist's only recourse ultimately entails some form of skepticism--usually a retreat to the epistemological defeatism of postmodernism.<br /><br />But according to Romans 1:19, which I absolutely believe is true, that is either a deliberate ploy or (more commonly) a manifestation of the atheist's own self-deception.<br /><br />Either way, the argument entails a denial that true knowledge is ultimately impossible--which is the very height of irrationality.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32893118411104127722010-03-02T15:24:27.206-08:002010-03-02T15:24:27.206-08:00Stratagem:
Of course, I don't personally see ...Stratagem:<br /><br />Of course, I don't personally see it as a circular argument either, and it all comes down to the living testimony of the indwelling Holy Spirit.<br /><br />But writing as someone who grew up as an atheist and spent his adult life by varying turns skeptical and agnostic, the Bible did appear to me to be a self-referential document. (...From which I picked and chose what I liked, because it fit my secular worldview—but that's a topic for another day!)<br /><br />So in the end, maybe all we can do is agree that without the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, it is just another book; whereas with the living, indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, it becomes what we believe it to be: the redemptive history of the one and only God, who through His active Word calls a people unto Himself.<br /><br />Hence (as many here would argue) the primacy of presuppositionalism over other forms of apologetics.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47670575759131283822010-03-02T14:17:48.988-08:002010-03-02T14:17:48.988-08:00Basically Mike actually raises what for me is a ke...<b>Basically Mike actually raises what for me is a key issue: we claim the Bible as our authority, as our rule of faith and practice, and the foundation of our doctrine; but the basis on which we attribute that authority to the Bible—its inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, etc.—itself comes from the Bible</b>.<br /><br />I don't really feel that way at all. If that's all we had, then we would believe the first so-called "holy" book we ever read (since most of them make truth claims about themselves), rather than believing the Bible. But we read the Koran, Book of Mormon, the Hindu writings, and so on and do not have the Holy Spirit convict us as to their truth, despite their truth-claims. There is something in the Bible that rings true to me, and there is something in all those other books that rings hollow. That "something" is God-granted faith. <br />"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74599738898143217942010-03-02T14:03:57.480-08:002010-03-02T14:03:57.480-08:00Thanks, Stefan. I think we're pretty much on t...Thanks, Stefan. I think we're pretty much on the same page.<br /><br />But I do think there is something that we get from the Holy Spirit that we don't get from holy scripture just as there is something from holy scripture that we don't get from the Holy Spirit. That is to say that we certainly get true information from the scriptures that we use to apprehend any "feeling" we get. But what the Holy Spirit gives us is not mere feeling, but a desire for truth and a willingness to submit to truth. An important part of this truth is an awareness of our sin which is a very personal barrier to knowing God. Without the Holy Spirit, we can read the Bible and not agree with this because we are blinded to it. The truth of the gospel answers our sin and find joy in what the Holy Spirit had already been prompting us to know. So, we don't need to know about the Holy Spirit to desire to know what the truth is. Nevertheless, it is the Holy Spirit who gives us that desire. When we read of him in the Bible then we recognize the truth because it suddenly makes sense as to why we would desire to know in the first place. It looks like this:<br /><br />Presupposition:<br />If I know the Bible is true then it was revealed to me by the Holy Spirit. (Causality being from consequent to antecedent.)<br /><br />Equivalency:<br />The Bible happens to say the Holy Spirit reveals truth. Therefore the antecedent and consequent of the presuppositional syllogism are equivalent statements.<br /><br />Proclamation (Since people who don't have the Holy Spirit cannot understand a straight presuppositional argument, the only argument that remains is the following):<br />The Bible says that it is true.<br /><br />If people are moved by the Holy spirit, they will investigate in earnest the veracity of the Bible. If they do not, then they might investigate the Bible if only to find some evidence that it is wrong. But it is the resonance of the truth internal to the scripture without the understanding of the Holy Spirit that atheists mistake for a circular argument.<br /><br /><br /><br />I actually had an evangelistic debate with a Muslim that ended up on this very thing. After some discussion, he said plainly that he didn't have the Holy Spirit so he could only read the Bible with his own mind. He actually seemed sad about having realized that fact and went away pondering it. So who knows?Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-50231870572762554682010-03-02T13:48:55.073-08:002010-03-02T13:48:55.073-08:00Jim:
Yes to all you said, and thank you for that....Jim:<br /><br />Yes to all you said, and thank you for that.<br /><br />Yes, we do have the indwelling Holy Spirit to interpret and validate Scripture for us. (But what know of the Holy Spirit—and how we interpret our experience of Him—is derived from Scripture.)<br /><br />As for validating those parts of the Bible that we can validate against external events, archaeological evidence, etc.—so as to place our trust in those parts we can't directly validate—I agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49973361379762528252010-03-02T12:35:09.955-08:002010-03-02T12:35:09.955-08:00That seems like a circular argument to those who a...That seems like a circular argument to those who are not indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Let me give you an example. I knew my mom. I had some experience with her before she died in my childhood. But all I knew is what I experienced, and that wanes as my memory fades. Now I have her personal journal where she wrote about her deeper thoughts and feelings as well as my early years. Alas, my memory is refreshed as a result and I even have some explanation as to why some things happened the way they did. Why would I doubt her journal? The truth of it resonates in me because of my experience with her. Likewise, the veracity of the Bible resonates with those who have personal experience living with the one true God. Now, not only do we have our own experience, but we have the most important rememberances of the experience of the history of this world with God since its creation. And inasmuch as we desire to know the truth, the truth written in this divine journal resonates in us. That is the source of our true Christian presuppositions and it's decidedly not circular.<br /><br />Now the evidence of the Bible only bolsters this. We can see that specific prophesies have come true. We can trace the bulk of the scriptures to historical events in the scriptures. We have Chronicles of the kings of God's people, the Hebrews, that are wholly unlike the Chronicles of the other kings of the world because of how starkly they point to faults in the Hebrew kings. We have a large and growing body of archeological evidence that the scriptures indeed speak of true places and events. The evidence and veracity of the accounts are astonishing. But nothing is as certain to us as the life given by the Holy Spirit who reveals the truth to us in such a way as to build us up in the grace of God.Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36455935607873223512010-03-02T12:26:21.170-08:002010-03-02T12:26:21.170-08:00Kurt,
It can be helpful to show that the scientif...Kurt,<br /><br />It can be helpful to show that the scientific method is based on philosophy.<br /><br />aka uniformity of nature and the principle of induction<br /><br />And further the question of why truth should be valued and sought after when there is no God. This is why Neitzsche said that scientist and athiests borrowed from the "millenial flame" of the christian faith to light their wayquibbling_for_crumbshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16780049290711701877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89796980258065438442010-03-02T11:51:55.957-08:002010-03-02T11:51:55.957-08:00Basically Mike actually raises what for me is a ke...Basically Mike actually raises what for me is a key issue: we claim the Bible as our authority, as our rule of faith and practice, and the foundation of our doctrine; but the basis on which we attribute that authority <i>to</i> the Bible—its inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, etc.—itself comes <i>from</i> the Bible.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68669226335018906882010-03-02T10:46:14.356-08:002010-03-02T10:46:14.356-08:00Quibbling wrote:
"Read Nietzsche's The G...Quibbling wrote:<br /><br />"Read Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals. "<br /><br />Nietzsche huh?<br /><br />I can't even spell his name without cut and paste. :-)<br /><br />Back when I thought science was god (little g), I had as low an opinion of philosophy as I did of theology, neither delt in fact, but in fiction as far as I was concerned.<br /><br />That said I'll check out the link.Kurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15889302514301822263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-22912981028469302592010-03-02T09:03:46.514-08:002010-03-02T09:03:46.514-08:00Darwinists usually charge that eugenics was a &quo...Darwinists usually charge that eugenics was a "mis-application" of Darwin's theories. <br /><br />However, no one can argue against the idea that it was Darwin's theories that led to the idea of eugenics. That is, the leap from natural selection to artificial selection based on "desireable" traits.<br /><br />And really, who's to say that the theories are "mis" applied in the case of eugenics, aside from the fact that the atheists/evolutionists don't want to be associated with the abominations that Darwinism led to?Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80600063052104195902010-03-02T07:18:00.159-08:002010-03-02T07:18:00.159-08:00Phil, what would be your reply to their, "you...Phil, what would be your reply to their, "you're using circular reasoning" charge? What an atheist usually charges you with in using the Bible to buttress your argument.<br />Thanksbassicallymikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559349653723448348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45882873795289550792010-03-02T05:54:00.332-08:002010-03-02T05:54:00.332-08:00I'm very disappointed in Keller. The argument ...I'm very disappointed in Keller. The argument that the style of Gen. 1 perforce RULES OUT any factual content is a non-sequitur. It is used only by those who wish to avoid what it actually teaches, because they have thrown in the towel and accepted evolutionary thought patterns. It's an attempt to curry favor with the "academic crowd," and that NEVER WORKS. You will be seen the same way the Communists saw American Leftists: as a "useful idiot." The inevitable slide is toward liberalism: witness Fuller Theological Seminary.<br /><br />Stand with God, not with the Ivory Tower.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82720208905751337892010-03-02T05:06:58.338-08:002010-03-02T05:06:58.338-08:00Paula,
Here's some brief comments by John Byl ...Paula,<br />Here's some brief comments by John Byl regarding <a href="http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/02/genesis-versus-dr-tim-keller.html" rel="nofollow">Tim Keller's paper</a>Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-78729532195801373902010-03-02T00:24:46.336-08:002010-03-02T00:24:46.336-08:00You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of ...You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your God.<br /><br />And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood (Psalms 106:34-41).<br /><br />The whole premise of most of these arguments is some kind of moral equivalencies and purposeful category distortions. To see the fallacy, use other categories and states. “You vigorously deny wolves are herbivores, but feel outraged that someone denies your collie is a carnivore!” If you try to prove your dog is a “canis” species, the atheist will retort that you are irrational since “wolves are also of “canis” and they are all carnivores!” What???<br /><br />The scriptures clearly teach that power of the “idols” were not in themselves but in the worship of the demonic behind them. In the Hebrew poetry above idols = devils = idols. So the Israelites who thought they were worshiping a Canaanite fertility god by sacrificing their children were actually sacrificing to self-declared rebellious creations, namely fallen angels = devils. Paul says the early Gentiles did the same, “How you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Modern converts from Animism or ancient converts as Augustine (see City of God) understand best what Paul means. Converts from nominal Christian homes lack the experience of the demonic spirits and so they discount this.<br /><br />The second rebellious act is to ascribe a blessing from the LORD, for example rain, to some other made up entity. “For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens” (Psalm 86:8-9). Paul says this in Romans, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things (Romans 1:50-23).<br /><br />Men, including, apostates who call themselves “atheists,” are without excuse. “The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods. Zion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of thy judgments, O LORD. For thou, LORD, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.” (Psalm 97:6-9).<br /><br />Our true God is sovereign, “For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods. Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places” (Psalm 135:5-6) and He is not a creation of man’s mind, “Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusts in them” (Psalms 115:2-8; 135:15-18). God is mocking idolaters!<br /><br />So the Bible has two Psalms (14 and 53) dedicated to our dear atheists-apostates. We shouldn’t fall into apostate fallacious arguments either or we would be answering the fool in his foolishness!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37429579843462508652010-03-01T22:04:56.842-08:002010-03-01T22:04:56.842-08:00You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when...<em>You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.</em><br /><br />So, what to do with fellow-believers who take a more dehumanizing approach because they are bending over backwards, forwards, and inside out to try to convince above-mentioned Redneck Atheists that Christians are <em>not</em> <b>Redneck Theologians</b>?<br /><br />Tim Keller in his <a href="http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf" rel="nofollow">White Paper on Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople</a> argues that there was a race of (I guess) sub-humans that evolved before Adam. He quotes Derek Kidner to explain his views:<br /><br /><em>"The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam….Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity…”</em><br /><br />Keller explains:<br /><br /><em>So in this model there was a place in the evolution of human beings when God took one out of the population of tool-makers and endowed him with ‘the image of God’. This would have lifted him up to a whole new ‘plane of life’.</em><br /><br />Although Keller does spend a good bit of time explaining and defending the nature of man and uniqueness of his place in creation as those endowed with the image of God, I think his evolutionary view is itself dehumanizing.<br /><br />It gets worse when you see some of the tangents he wanders off into with this view:<br /><br /><em>This approach would explain perennially difficult Biblical questions such as--who were the people that Cain feared would slay him in revenge for the murder of Abel (Gen 4:14)? Who was Cain’s wife, and how could Cain have built a city filled with inhabitants (Gen 4:17)? We might even ask why Genesis 2:20 hints that Adam went on a search to ‘find’ a spouse if there were only animals around? In Kidner’s approach, Adam and Eve were not alone in the world, and that answers all these questions.</em><br /><br />Thank goodness we've laid that to rest. Now the Redneck Atheists won't think we're so stupid!<br /><br />Besides the fact that Keller mischaracterizes the young earth creationist view (and implicates Ken Ham, specifically), it's sad that he has to go through so much mumbo jumbo to "explain" things so that unbelievers and skeptics will more readily "accept" biblical truth.Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15700962695127146890noreply@blogger.com