There is no style in MMA I cannot stand more than wrestling. While it might be an effective fighting style when combined with other aspects of fighting, by itself it is nothing more than a way bring your opponent to the mat while laying on them until the ref counts to three and....oh wait, wrong sport. Wrestling by itself is useless in MMA as it is nothing more than a way to PIN your opponenent to the ground, but this is not WWF, and pinning does not win fights, submissions, TKO's or KO's win fights.
One must know either how to SUBMIT your opponent on the ground, or how to effectivly strike while on the ground, which brings me to Matt Hughes. His win over Matt Serra was contraversial at best, which I believe comes from his pure wrestling style. After his loss to GSP(twice) and BJ Penn(yes I know he beat him in a rematch, but Penn was dominating him in the first 2 rounds, he most liekly lost because he gassed in the third) it wasn't difficult to beat him. All one must do is defend his take down attempts (GSP) or if one happens to get taken down to the ground, have a good ground game(BJ).
While easier said than done, it is a remarkably simple strategy to defeat wrestlers which is why Serra beat hughs the first time and why it is so up in the air whether or not he beat him the second time. It is definitly time for Matt and other wrestlers(looking at you Brock) to either adapt or retire.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
An atheists failure to criticize.
The pixie brings up some ridiculous criticisms.
Pixie is being ignorant and has displayed his inability to read.
I never said Loftus claims it proves the universe does not have a cause, nor did I insinuate it, I was merely showing Loftus error.
"Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all"
What he is talking about is Quantum fluctuations and he is wrong, they do have a cause for their existence. Not only that but it can't even be used as support for the possibility since, they exist WITH a cause, and Loftus quite clearly states "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time."
If you're going to maintain that the big bang had no cause, then you cannot use quantum fluctuations as support. Not even for the POSSIBILITY, since quantum fluctuations have a cause. Not only that, but even if we were to accept your assertion that the universe came into existence via quantum fluctuation that does nothing but bring us back to square one, 'what caused the QF?'
Pixie completely misunderstands the point here. The point is that God is MORE PROBABLE than a multiverse, which renders his question 'Does complexity add up in that way? Would you say that an infinite number of pens must be more complex than God? Sounds wrong to me.' would've been answered if he had understood the point, since it is about what is MORE PROBABLE, not about what is more complex.
if we concede, for the sake of argument, that a universal designer must be 1,000 times more complex than the universe in order to create it, and therefore 1,000 times more improbable, a universal designer is still more mathematically likely than the squared improbability of there being two universes of similar complexity. For example, if the probability of one universe is one in one million, then the probability of the universal designer would be one in one billion, but the probability of there being two universes of similarly complex natures would be a much more improbable one in one trillion.
Applying Pixies logic he should accept the following:
YEC is a possibility, not an accepted scientific theory. The point of appealing to it is to show that there are ways to get around the theory of evolution. We do not know if YEC is right, but we do know that the theory of evolution is unsound.
Pixie also says the teleological argument is unsound? now this depends on what he means, as there is the teleological argument as proof of God, which is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT HERE. What I was talking about was the anthropic principle. So not only is pixies logic equally applied to things like YEC, his criticism is nothing but a straw man, since I was talking about the anthropic principle and not the teleological argument. Furthermore he engages in the hilarious irony of appealing to an unscientific, unfalsifiable multiverse to get around an unfalsifiable, unscientific(atheist logic here) God.
1. You quote Loftus: David Ramsay Steele reminds us that according to quantum mechanics "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all
The point Loftus is making is that this is one possibility. QM gives us a precedent for thinking that this is possible, but that is not the same as proving it did. Loftus claims no more than that (in this quite anyway).
Pixie is being ignorant and has displayed his inability to read.
I never said Loftus claims it proves the universe does not have a cause, nor did I insinuate it, I was merely showing Loftus error.
"Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all"
What he is talking about is Quantum fluctuations and he is wrong, they do have a cause for their existence. Not only that but it can't even be used as support for the possibility since, they exist WITH a cause, and Loftus quite clearly states "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time."
You say: ... these things happen when there is ALREADY something in existence, principles, fields, physics, etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but do we know that these things did not exist before the Big Bang? As far as I know, physicists have no idea what there was before the Big Bang. We just do not know. Therefore it remains a possibility that the Big Bang had no cause (that does leave the question of where the principles came from, but the only reasonable answer is "we do not know").
If you're going to maintain that the big bang had no cause, then you cannot use quantum fluctuations as support. Not even for the POSSIBILITY, since quantum fluctuations have a cause. Not only that, but even if we were to accept your assertion that the universe came into existence via quantum fluctuation that does nothing but bring us back to square one, 'what caused the QF?'
You say: On page 90 he brings up the multiverse which is a nonscientific concept, if we accept Dawkins’s naked assertion that a universal designer is more complex than the one known universe, a designer is probably less complex than any two universes and infinitely less complex than an infinity of them.
Does complexity add up in that way? Would you say that an infinite number of pens must be more complex than God? Sounds wrong to me.
Pixie completely misunderstands the point here. The point is that God is MORE PROBABLE than a multiverse, which renders his question 'Does complexity add up in that way? Would you say that an infinite number of pens must be more complex than God? Sounds wrong to me.' would've been answered if he had understood the point, since it is about what is MORE PROBABLE, not about what is more complex.
if we concede, for the sake of argument, that a universal designer must be 1,000 times more complex than the universe in order to create it, and therefore 1,000 times more improbable, a universal designer is still more mathematically likely than the squared improbability of there being two universes of similar complexity. For example, if the probability of one universe is one in one million, then the probability of the universal designer would be one in one billion, but the probability of there being two universes of similarly complex natures would be a much more improbable one in one trillion.
You say: Since the multiverse cannot be observed, verified, and is untestable and as unfalsifiable the God hypothesis, and was created specifically to get around the telological argument, one wonders why Loftus would be appealing to it.
Multiverse is a possibility, not an accepted scientific theory. The point of appealing to it is to show that there are ways to get around the teleological argument. We do not know if the multiverse is right, but we do know that the teleological argument is unsound.
Applying Pixies logic he should accept the following:
YEC is a possibility, not an accepted scientific theory. The point of appealing to it is to show that there are ways to get around the theory of evolution. We do not know if YEC is right, but we do know that the theory of evolution is unsound.
Pixie also says the teleological argument is unsound? now this depends on what he means, as there is the teleological argument as proof of God, which is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT HERE. What I was talking about was the anthropic principle. So not only is pixies logic equally applied to things like YEC, his criticism is nothing but a straw man, since I was talking about the anthropic principle and not the teleological argument. Furthermore he engages in the hilarious irony of appealing to an unscientific, unfalsifiable multiverse to get around an unfalsifiable, unscientific(atheist logic here) God.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
One would think that someone who had studied Christianity and has the equivalent of a P.H.D would have better arguments than this! Round 2.
Round 2 is a little long but bear with me, Loftus made a lot of errors in this chapter.
Hypocrisy
On pg 35. Loftus states "I'm going to begin with what many Christians assume about their faith. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism." After reading this one must ask him self, how many is many? Loftus states that many Christians assume we have a rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief, but how many Christians do this? how many is many? 2? 5? 5,000? is there a poll? where is Loftus getting his information from?
He says it again on pg 37. "Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good." but how many is many? what is even more interesting is on pg. 190-191. On page 190 there is an objection written stating "Jesus said that some people wouldn't believe even if God raised a man from the dead." to which Loftus replies
but wait? didn't Loftus just use the same logic on page 37? so how can he criticize the objection for using the word 'some' when he uses the word 'most' in the same logic. Loftus criticizes the objection on pg. 191 for doing the same thing he does on pg. 35 and 37, this of course is hypocrisy.
Bait and switch, deceptively playing with facts:
On pg 37. Loftus states the following:
Notice some things. If you look at how Loftus started his argument you will see a pattern.
1. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism."
2. They claim that atheists
3. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral,
4. Craig summed up the moral case against atheism
as you can see, Loftus starts out by talking about strictly atheism. Now notice a pattern after he quotes Craig.
1. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic.
2. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently?
3. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians
A close look at the paragraph reveals Loftus deception. He starts out talking about atheism, then ends his argument talking about non-Christians! but as facts and empirical evidence tells us, non-Christains are not exclusively atheists. Muslims are non Christians, as are Buddhists, Hindus etc. etc. Loftus uses a bait and switch. he starts off talking about atheism, then substitutes atheism for non-Christian, but why did he do that? perhaps when he said non-Christian he meant atheist. This of course is also incorrect, the reason Loftus needed to switch from atheism to non-Christians is because if he hadn't even to the uneducated his entire argument would've fallen apart, only with deception can he even attempt such a ridiculous argument.
As you can see, if it were just strictly atheists Loftus's billions number would be laughed at.(more evidence here)
That number includes deism as well, and desists are not atheists. Even if you would lump deists in with atheists the number barely reaches over 1 billion, it is certainly not enough to support Loftus ridiculous assertions of 'billions' of people acting according to Craigs logic causing great mayhem in this world.
General arguments
Loftus tries to use the Euthyphro dilemma to refute the divine command theory to which he states:
God could've commanded us to do something horribly evil by simply declaring it good. If God is the creator of morality like he's purportedly the creator of the universe, then he could've declared any act good, and there would be no reason above God to distinguish Him from the devil. He then brings up God calling to slaughter the Caananites as an example of this. This of course is the premiere tactic of the atheist, bring up a seemingly horrible act found in the OT and hopefully the Christian won't be educated enough to refute it, I'll keep it short and if anyone wants to further press the issue I would be more than happy to do so. God ordering the destruction of the Canaanites was a good and moral act because of the following reasons.
1. The annihilations are judgments.
2 These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
3 These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
4 Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
5 Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
6 Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
7 These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
Like I said, if anyone wants to challenge me on the issue I will be more than happy to go further in depth about it, but this is about pointing out Loftus's infantile arguments and exposing them as such. On pg. 39 Loftus states:
Loftus criticizes this view with the following:
This of course is incorrect, it does a lot of good to step back to Gods nature. We can know Gods nature is good by looking at his actions and applying His own views of what is right and wrong. If Gods nature is good, and God gave us morals through the bible, then He should act consistently with His own views of what is right and wrong, then we can know whether or not Gods nature is good. Loftus is correct stating that there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, and that moral standard is of course the morals found within Gods word.
He quotes Louis P. Pojman:
This of course is just Loftus relying on his academic appeals to authority. I quote him saying:
I cannot criticize his arguments (or anyone elses for that matter) unless I have credentials. This is nothing but fallacious reasoning and also a silly assumption since I have never even said what type of credentials I have or do not have. That is the reason why my credentials(or lack of them) will always remain hidden, it forces people to actually deal with the arguments, not on the credentials of whose making them.
In any case Pojman is wrong, God commands what is good because it is His nature to command what is good, not because it is good already. Keep in mind I am not arguing that we cannot find out what is good based upon reason, what I am arguing is that using reason to find out what is good and is not good is not as effective as listening to God in the first place. Pojman makes a very common error, he says "We do not need God to tell us that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that." Sure, reason can most definitely tell you it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering but unnecessary suffering is an easy one, what about sexual promiscuity? God says sexual promiscuity is wrong, the atheist says it isn't(if there is an atheist that says sexual promiscuity is wrong I will gladly concede this). According to Pojman and Loftus we don't need God to tell us if it is right or wrong, reason alone should suffice. Well the evidence shows that homosexuals are the most sexually active and also enjoy the shortest life span. This is just one example that shows reason alone does not suffice.
On pg. 43 Loftus states
This is of course a complete and utter misunderstanding of Christianity, Christians are not to obey God because of fear of hell fire, we're to obey God because He simply knows what is best. He created the universe it's laws, He is more smart and wise than any human being, that is why we should obey God, fear of hell fire of course is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.
on pg. 42 J.P. Moreland asks the question "what is the point of an atheist doing good and moral deeds? why should I do these things if they are not satisfying me or if they are not in my interests?" Loftus responds with the following:
This does nothing but beg the question. What is the point of a life plan for the atheist? why have one? why have a life plan other than self satisfaction and selfish pleasure? He quotes Pojmam, "To have the benefits of the moral life-friendship, mutual love, inner peace, moral pride or satisfaction, and the freedom from moral guilt-one has to have a certain kind of reliable character. All in all the benefits are eminently worth having. Indeed life without them may not be worth living." This sounds nice, but it doesn't answer the question, it simply asks a new one! what is the point? what is the point of inner peace, mutual love, moral pride or satisfaction? that question was never answered. Lofus just declares life without them may not be worth living, that of course is Pojmans personal opinion, it does not answer what the point is.
on pg 41 Lotus states:
This is also wrong, you cannot look at people to determine that, for all Loftus knows the objective moral standard exists but the Christians simply are not following it. Are you seriously going to say that because judges and lawyers argue over laws that they aren't certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases? so why on earth are you going to say that because Christians argue over certain things that can't be objectively certain that they know the moral standards.
Finally he quotes Kai Nelson:
This of course is Loftus trying to pressure the theist into relying on his considered convictions. The question why should I care? can easily be answered, 'Because I am loyal to God and trust that He knows what is best for me, after all trusting in a being that is practically infinitely smarter than the smartest human being is more logical that trusting in something else.'
The real point of course is Loftus question found on pg 37. Why don't atheists(now that his deception has been exposed I am using the proper term) act consistently with Craigs logic? The answer can be found in a quote from W. Somerset Maugham’s, which states
-Vox day the irrational atheist.
There are more errors, suffice to say there were too many to list. These are the main errors, I might post the other ones at a later date, but in any case stay tuned for rd 3.
Hypocrisy
On pg 35. Loftus states "I'm going to begin with what many Christians assume about their faith. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism." After reading this one must ask him self, how many is many? Loftus states that many Christians assume we have a rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief, but how many Christians do this? how many is many? 2? 5? 5,000? is there a poll? where is Loftus getting his information from?
He says it again on pg 37. "Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good." but how many is many? what is even more interesting is on pg. 190-191. On page 190 there is an objection written stating "Jesus said that some people wouldn't believe even if God raised a man from the dead." to which Loftus replies
"The word some here needs to be unpacked when it is said, "some people today would not believe." How many does the word some mean? Who knows?"
but wait? didn't Loftus just use the same logic on page 37? so how can he criticize the objection for using the word 'some' when he uses the word 'most' in the same logic. Loftus criticizes the objection on pg. 191 for doing the same thing he does on pg. 35 and 37, this of course is hypocrisy.
Bait and switch, deceptively playing with facts:
On pg 37. Loftus states the following:
Many Christians maintain they have a superior foundation for knowing and for choosing to do what is good. They claim to have objective ethical standards for being good, based in a morally good creator God, along with the best motivation for being good, which is an eternal reward in the presence of a loving God. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral, much less a motivation for acting on those morals, especially when they conflict with her own personal self-interest. They claim that atheists do not have a good reason to condemn murder, brutality, and torture, nor do they have an ultimate reason to refrain from murdering, raping, and torturing other people themselves.then Loftus quotes Craig. Now after the quote is the deceptive part, he states, further down on pg. 37 and onto page 38.
Dr. William Lane Craig quotes with approval Fyodor Dostoyevsky's characater Ivan Karamazov, who said, "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible." Craig summed up the moral case against atheism using these words:
Before we move on to the philosophical arguments for this claim, let's pause and ask first why there is no evidence for what Craig claims. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this word, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently? No one says to herself, "This is the reasonable or logical thing to do but I refuse to do it," unless she is mentally challenged. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians are mentally challenged...that the overwhelming majority of us don't live consistent lives with what we believe?
Notice some things. If you look at how Loftus started his argument you will see a pattern.
1. They assume a certain kind of rational and/or moral superiority over any other system of belief and though, especially atheism."
2. They claim that atheists
3. These Christians also claim that the atheist has no ultimate justification for being moral,
4. Craig summed up the moral case against atheism
as you can see, Loftus starts out by talking about strictly atheism. Now notice a pattern after he quotes Craig.
1. If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic.
2. In other words, why don't non Christians act consistently?
3. Do theists like Craig want to claim that nearly all non-Christians
A close look at the paragraph reveals Loftus deception. He starts out talking about atheism, then ends his argument talking about non-Christians! but as facts and empirical evidence tells us, non-Christains are not exclusively atheists. Muslims are non Christians, as are Buddhists, Hindus etc. etc. Loftus uses a bait and switch. he starts off talking about atheism, then substitutes atheism for non-Christian, but why did he do that? perhaps when he said non-Christian he meant atheist. This of course is also incorrect, the reason Loftus needed to switch from atheism to non-Christians is because if he hadn't even to the uneducated his entire argument would've fallen apart, only with deception can he even attempt such a ridiculous argument.
If he is correct, we should see billions of non-Christians acting consistently according to this logic. There should be great mayhem in this world, the likes of which should send the rest of us into the asylum.
As you can see, if it were just strictly atheists Loftus's billions number would be laughed at.(more evidence here)
Secular/irreligious/agnostic/atheist/antitheistic/antireligious: 1.1 billion
That number includes deism as well, and desists are not atheists. Even if you would lump deists in with atheists the number barely reaches over 1 billion, it is certainly not enough to support Loftus ridiculous assertions of 'billions' of people acting according to Craigs logic causing great mayhem in this world.
General arguments
Loftus tries to use the Euthyphro dilemma to refute the divine command theory to which he states:
God could've commanded us to do something horribly evil by simply declaring it good. If God is the creator of morality like he's purportedly the creator of the universe, then he could've declared any act good, and there would be no reason above God to distinguish Him from the devil. He then brings up God calling to slaughter the Caananites as an example of this. This of course is the premiere tactic of the atheist, bring up a seemingly horrible act found in the OT and hopefully the Christian won't be educated enough to refute it, I'll keep it short and if anyone wants to further press the issue I would be more than happy to do so. God ordering the destruction of the Canaanites was a good and moral act because of the following reasons.
1. The annihilations are judgments.
2 These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
3 These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
4 Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
5 Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
6 Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
7 These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.
Like I said, if anyone wants to challenge me on the issue I will be more than happy to go further in depth about it, but this is about pointing out Loftus's infantile arguments and exposing them as such. On pg. 39 Loftus states:
"The divine command theory is in such disrepute in today's philosophical circles that only modified divine command theories are being discussed. Christian apologist J.P. Moreland actually claims, "I'm not a divine command theorist...[T]his view implies that morality is merely grounded in God's will as opposed to his nature. That's not my view. I think God's will is ultimately expressed in keeping with his nature. Morality is ultimately grounded in the nature of God, not independently of God."
Loftus criticizes this view with the following:
"But this difference Adams speaks about makes no difference. It does no good to step back behind the commands of God to his purported nature, for we still want to know whether or not God's nature is good. God's nature cannot be known to be good without a standard of goodness showing that it is. Unless there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, we still don't know whether God is good. Again, God is, well, just God.
This of course is incorrect, it does a lot of good to step back to Gods nature. We can know Gods nature is good by looking at his actions and applying His own views of what is right and wrong. If Gods nature is good, and God gave us morals through the bible, then He should act consistently with His own views of what is right and wrong, then we can know whether or not Gods nature is good. Loftus is correct stating that there is a moral standard that shows God is good beyond the mere fact that God declares that his nature is good, and that moral standard is of course the morals found within Gods word.
He quotes Louis P. Pojman:
"the modified divine command theory becomes equivalent to: God commands the good because it is good, and the good is not good simply because God commands it." Therefore "we can discover our ethical duties through reason, independent of Gods command. For what is good for his creatures is so objectively. We do not need God to tell us that it is bed to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that."
This of course is just Loftus relying on his academic appeals to authority. I quote him saying:
How would you know whether my arguments are infantile? In order to say that you would have to have some kind of credentials to say so, especially when professors are using my book in their college classes. Do you really think these professors would bring into their classes something infantile and ridiculous? I think not.
I cannot criticize his arguments (or anyone elses for that matter) unless I have credentials. This is nothing but fallacious reasoning and also a silly assumption since I have never even said what type of credentials I have or do not have. That is the reason why my credentials(or lack of them) will always remain hidden, it forces people to actually deal with the arguments, not on the credentials of whose making them.
In any case Pojman is wrong, God commands what is good because it is His nature to command what is good, not because it is good already. Keep in mind I am not arguing that we cannot find out what is good based upon reason, what I am arguing is that using reason to find out what is good and is not good is not as effective as listening to God in the first place. Pojman makes a very common error, he says "We do not need God to tell us that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering; reason can do that." Sure, reason can most definitely tell you it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering but unnecessary suffering is an easy one, what about sexual promiscuity? God says sexual promiscuity is wrong, the atheist says it isn't(if there is an atheist that says sexual promiscuity is wrong I will gladly concede this). According to Pojman and Loftus we don't need God to tell us if it is right or wrong, reason alone should suffice. Well the evidence shows that homosexuals are the most sexually active and also enjoy the shortest life span. This is just one example that shows reason alone does not suffice.
On pg. 43 Loftus states
"let's first consider the motivation that a Christian has for acting good and not bad. Christains claim that if we disbelieve and disobey God, we'll "fry in hell," as Nielsen describes it. Yet obeying for this reason "Is pure prudence masquerading as morality....[T]hat is hardly a good moral reason for doing anything."
This is of course a complete and utter misunderstanding of Christianity, Christians are not to obey God because of fear of hell fire, we're to obey God because He simply knows what is best. He created the universe it's laws, He is more smart and wise than any human being, that is why we should obey God, fear of hell fire of course is one of the reasons, but it is not the only reason.
on pg. 42 J.P. Moreland asks the question "what is the point of an atheist doing good and moral deeds? why should I do these things if they are not satisfying me or if they are not in my interests?" Loftus responds with the following:
"It doesn't follow from the lack of an "Ultimate motivation" to be a good person that the atheist doesn't have a sufficient motivational grounding for a being a good person. There are plenty of motives here on earth to be a good person, and it starts with an overall life plan.
This does nothing but beg the question. What is the point of a life plan for the atheist? why have one? why have a life plan other than self satisfaction and selfish pleasure? He quotes Pojmam, "To have the benefits of the moral life-friendship, mutual love, inner peace, moral pride or satisfaction, and the freedom from moral guilt-one has to have a certain kind of reliable character. All in all the benefits are eminently worth having. Indeed life without them may not be worth living." This sounds nice, but it doesn't answer the question, it simply asks a new one! what is the point? what is the point of inner peace, mutual love, moral pride or satisfaction? that question was never answered. Lofus just declares life without them may not be worth living, that of course is Pojmans personal opinion, it does not answer what the point is.
on pg 41 Lotus states:
"Even if Christians did have objective moral standards, they cannot be objectively certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases. Just look at Christianity's past and you'll see what I mean. Believers will still disagree with each other on a multifaceted number of ethical issues, whether they start with the bible as God's revelation or the morality gleaned from a natural law theory. Then he quotes Sam Harris, "We decide what is good in the Good Book"
This is also wrong, you cannot look at people to determine that, for all Loftus knows the objective moral standard exists but the Christians simply are not following it. Are you seriously going to say that because judges and lawyers argue over laws that they aren't certain that they know them or that they know how to apply to specific real life cases? so why on earth are you going to say that because Christians argue over certain things that can't be objectively certain that they know the moral standards.
Finally he quotes Kai Nelson:
"The religious moralist...doesn't have any better or any worse objectivity. Because, suppose he says, 'We should love God...Why obey His commandments? He basically would have to say, 'Because God is perfect good, and God with his perfect goodness reveals to us the great value of self respect for people. He shows that people are of infinite precious worth.' But even if you accept this, you could go on to ask 'Why should you care? What difference does it make anyway whether people are of infinite precious worth?' Faced with such questioning, you will finally be pushed into a corner, where you say 'It is important to me that people be regarded as being of infinite worth because I just happen to care about people."
This of course is Loftus trying to pressure the theist into relying on his considered convictions. The question why should I care? can easily be answered, 'Because I am loyal to God and trust that He knows what is best for me, after all trusting in a being that is practically infinitely smarter than the smartest human being is more logical that trusting in something else.'
The real point of course is Loftus question found on pg 37. Why don't atheists(now that his deception has been exposed I am using the proper term) act consistently with Craigs logic? The answer can be found in a quote from W. Somerset Maugham’s, which states
“do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.” The fundamental irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions, and it is here that his general lack of intellectual conviction is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have rational reasons for attempting to live by their various moral systems, the atheist does not. Both ethics and morals based on religion are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist, he is therefore required to reject them on rational materialist grounds. He can, of course, make a perfectly rational decision to abide by ethics and morals to which he does not personally subscribe because it would be dangerous to do otherwise in a society where he is outnumbered. This is W. Somerset Maugham’s semi-rational atheism, which states “do what thou wilt, with due regard for the policeman around the corner.”
So the atheist seeks to live by the dominant morality whenever it is convenient for him, and there are even those who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them. But even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior.
One need only ask an atheist what his morality is, and inquire as to how he developed it and why it should happen to so closely coincide with the dominant societal morality to discover that there is nothing rational about most atheists’ beliefs.
-Vox day the irrational atheist.
There are more errors, suffice to say there were too many to list. These are the main errors, I might post the other ones at a later date, but in any case stay tuned for rd 3.
Hatton didn't surprise me.
I really don't know how anyone expected Hatton to win. He was Knocked out by a Mayweather left hook to his un protected jaw as he was diving in. Hatton simply cannot deal with any sort of speed, his style just doesn't allow for it, there isn't much to say about the Pacquiao Hatton fight that wasn't already blatantly obvious. Hatton cannot deal with speed and while the fight itself was predictable the after math is a bit more puzzling. Where does Pacquiao go from here? I would love him to fight Floyd and this would be a good fight for Floyd as well since he is missing one of those career defining fights that all of the greats had. I think Pacquiao has the potential to make it a really challenging drawn out war for Mayweather, but it seems we must wait a couple fights. Mayweather is apparently wanting to fight Marquez.
I don't blame Mayweather for going straight to the top, but I will start accusing him of ducking the better competition if he does not fight some of them after the Marquez fight.
"I am not wasting any time with a tune-up fight," said Mayweather. "I'm going straight to the top. Marquez called me out immediately after his victory over Juan Diaz in February and now he gets his wish. What he is going to find out is that you should be very careful what you wish for."
Mayweather continued, "the rest of those fighters who called me out can get in line too because they are going to get their chance...one at a time and slowly but surely. It's going to be a great return and a wonderful 'experience.' Don't blink - I'M BACK!"
I don't blame Mayweather for going straight to the top, but I will start accusing him of ducking the better competition if he does not fight some of them after the Marquez fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)