The Insane & Artificial World of Make Believe of Secularism.

Interesting. Any chance you can come up with a nyc.gov or other official link for the law that authorizes that fine?

What does secularism have to do with normalising mental disorders?

It can not produce objective standards by which to qualify terms like " sanity " or " insanity " .
Sanity presupposes a standard of sanity from which to deviate, in a world without God where " men " like Bruce Jenner can " choose " their own gender, where would they get such a standard? And in light of this, how do they know they're not " insane " ?

What they would be calling " sane " or " insane " in light of the behavior demonstrated by this " Man " would be nothing more than an arbitrary preference or opinion.

Those standards come from the DSM, a secular standardized science based volume categorizing mental conditions, not burning bushes demanding to be fed the first born sons of mentally addled sheep herders long entered into sinensis because of advanced age.

We've kinda deviated from declarations of demonic possession for anything from catatonic schizophrenia to left handedness.

Jack - This is one of * many * of your claims, not an argument or evidence for a claim. Science can only tell us what IS , not what OUGHT to be, which is what morality is about. You can't quantify morality in a lab.

This is also what's known in philosophy as a category mistake, which is an ontological error where properties of one kind ( Science and materialism ) are attributed to something which does not and can not possess those properties ( Morality and the immaterial or abstact )

You're simply parroting what secular idiots are feeding you. You are like a ship without a rudder simply blowing about with every knowledge claim that comes down the pipe, and this comment is one of many, many examples of that you have displayed..

I'm not even reading your drivel. You keep referring to logical fallacies to verify your inane pablum yet still offer no FACTS nor even opinion applicable to the subject.

Morality can't be quantified in any which way at all, seeing that they're just artificial constructs offering guidelines to prefered behaviour. "OUGHT to be" as in subjective as well as relative. Before you yap about objective and absolutes, the Bible offers commandments on how to sell your young daughter, how to whip a slave, the payment for a donkey that fell in a neighbor's hole, what a women should do during and after estrus, etc. Any of that apply to your modern secularized life? Do you even eat Kosher, pray to Yawheh in Temple on HIS Sabbath? Do you celebrate Passover as Jesus said to saying it will mark his second coming? (A tad late though that, since in his farewell he told his disciples it will happn during their lifetimes)

Yeah, I know logic isn't important to you. You have made that abundantly clear repeatedly.

If morality can't be quantified in any which way at all, why did you try to do that with your reference to science ? You can't have it both ways. You can't say morality can't be measured and then point to a naturalistic method of inquiry designed for doing exactly that.

You make zero sense and are becoming increasingly unhinged and arguing in a circle. Subjective morality and moral relativism is irrational, illogical and is a direct violation of the law of non-contradiction. .

Subjective morality says that two people can have two opposing view points on moral positions and both would be just as valid as the other.in them being true. Good luck with that one.

In regards to all these biblical claims about morality. According to your own words in this very post and assuming all you have listed are in fact biblical commands for the modern believer, There would be nothing wrong with any of these things according to you because morality would be subjective, relative, and based on arbitrary preferences.

So why list them as if this is a problem and you can even qualify them as immoral to begin with? I'll tell you exactly why, because this isn't about what you have thought through or can argue, but rather what you are merely parroting by other atheist idiots and websites and the fact that you and all atheists know God exists and are merely trying to paint what you hate as an immoral monster while trying to suppress him in the process.

You have consistently demonstrated why atheism is insane, illogical, immoral, and why only a small fringe minority who can't think for themselves embrace it.

Again, tl;dr
Just the first line.

Form over content, lad. Your pre-fabricated copy/paste logical fallacies ramblings say absolutely nothing, other than testify to your general ignorance and overall idiocy. C'mon, guy, ya ain't even read the Bible outside of John 3:16. If it wasn't for pro wrestling, you wouldn't even know that.

Moron.

To some who commits constant logical fails my pointing out your constant committing of logical fails would say nothing. Here we have more insult in lieu of a counter argument.

You're a mental midget with no argument. What happened to not reading anymore of my posts? That didn't last too long, did it.

Still evading the issue, aye, ya pissed upon simpleton (ad hominem alert)?
What's the fallacy of deflection called again?

Remember this.

" I'm not even reading your drivel. You keep referring to logical fallacies to verify your inane pablum yet still offer no FACTS nor even opinion applicable to the subject. "

Well golly gee, I plum forgot I said that. Thanx, brosky..

Gender confusion

There is no proof for God, while there is proof for transgender people not having to conform with the body they were born in.

" There is no proof for God " is a logically fallacious statement which would require you to hold infinite knowledge to make. In other words. You'd have to be God to state " There's no proof for God " This would be true even if your statement were true, because you'd have no way of knowing without holding all knowledge of the universe.

Considering the illogical nature of the first part of your statement, I won't even bother with the second part.

Lol

This is what's known in logic as a faulty comparison fallacy. Faulty comparison fallacies are making weak comparisons to try to prove a point rather than arguing inductively or deductively that a proposition or claim is true or false.

The comparison is only acceptable to the degree the reader, listener, or audience ( Usually an audience who already agrees with the comparison ) sees the two things being compared as being alike.

This type of " reasoning " is fallacious because comparing something with another thing which has more dissimilarities than similarities does not show a claim to be true or false and is rooted in intellectual laziness.

I'm not " saying " anything. I'm telling you what a faulty comparison fallacy in fact is. and you missed the entire point of the fallacy and got it exactly backwards.

That something is true or false regardless of what a person believes is precisely the point and what the fallacy is saying. The strengh of or benefits of this fallacy being used in argument is in direct proportion to what they audience already believes. This is why atheists use this fallacy all the time. You're actually making my argument for me.

" You said that the statement "there is no proof for God" is fallacious because no one saying it has infinite knowledge and cannot therefore say with any degree of certainty that God does not exist. What you said is true, but it also applies to other gods as well "
Your right, it would apply to other Gods, but no one is making that claim for other Gods as you did for the Christian God. In your last statement you've also just committed a third fallacy called the augment from ignorance fallacy.

" What you said about "no one can say with certainty that God doesn't exist because no one has the infinite knowledge required" is true, as I've already agreed to, but does it support your claim that God exists? "

I'm not making the claim that this means God exists. All I have said is that the statement is fallacious and you're attempting to draw further conclusions from that.

" And if you've acknowledged that the same argument applies to all other gods, you're admitting that you can't really say for sure that they don't exist. "

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that " There's no evidence for God " is fallacious. That's it, period. Your statement begs the question by assuming my epistemology is based on naturalism. It's not.

I can say for certain they don't exist, but that wouldn't be based on a naturalistic world view & epistemology. I am dealing with this subject based on the naturalistic claim " There is no evidence for God "

You are a assuming that naturalistic epistemology is the sole means by which I acquire knowledge. It's not.

"How would you say that a non-naturalistic epistemology is reliable?"

The same way you do. By the God who reveals himself as reliable and trustworthy to you, me, and all individuals by general revelation through this created universe.

" Saying for certain they don't exist and being able to prove they don't exist are two totally different things. If you are certain of something but can't prove it (or show any evidence for it), why do you feel your certainty is justified? "

Which is once again begging the question and assuming naturalism. That anything can be proven at all or evidenced presupposes this existence of God and the preconditions necessary for intelligibility. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Unless reason and fact are themselves interpreted in terms of God they are unintelligible. If God is not presupposed, reason is a pure abstraction that has no contact with fact and fact is a pure abstraction that has no contact with reason.

Reason and fact cannot be brought into fruitful union with one other except upon the presupposition of the existence of God and his control over the universe.

The universal laws of logic and the fixed laws of physics necessary for practicing science also presuppose God and can not be accounted for in a naturalistic world view & epistemology.

To argue against God using naturalism would literally require you to sit in his lap and slap his face and then jump back down and say " You don't exist God "

" Back to my earlier question: how would you say that a non-naturalistic epistemology is reliable? "

I already answered this. Simply repeating it is mere rhetoric.

Part 1.

"Yes, he has. and like a drunk who denies he has a drinking problem, so to you deny the God you know to exist."

I can speak for the implications of your world view you currently deny. What you claim and what can be argued are separate topics.

“ Logic and reason and induction are good tools for understanding the world around us, but they have their limitations. But I trust them any day of the week over presuppositions about anything supernatural which has not been verified. “

You are displaying you don't even have a grasps of your own naturalistic world view, which is predicated on basal assumptions and presuppositions which have not been verified. Induction is predicated on 3 basal assumptions.

“ Yes, I made a tautology, because the existence of things tells us only that much. The existence of an egg tells me that the egg exists, not that God created the egg. “

This is false and would flunk you out of the most basic philosophy class. It tells us that everything which began to exist has a cause. It can be deduced by the nature of logic & induction in contrast with an atheistic world view that God alone accounts for the abstract, immaterial,universality of logic and intelligibility necessary for science. Atheism and naturalism does not.

“ I have not seen "faulty conclusions" derive from me not interpreting things through the lens of God existing. You put scientists in quotes, in an attempt to delegitimize results and evidence you don't like or agree with. “

Of course you have not “ seen “ faulty conclusions, because your deficient world view and epistemology based on faulty presuppositions does not afford it. That's a given. I put science in quotes because most of what secularists call science is scentism, not science.

“ They're intelligible to a degree. “

They're not intelligible at all. In your world view you're nothing but a highly evolved animal derived from pond scum with no objective purpose or meaning. There's no moral obligation for the intelligible order necessary for logic or science. None that wouldn't' be based on purely arbitrary preferences or pragmatism.

“ Almost nothing is without the possibility of error. “

God is without error.

Part 1.

“No God has revealed themselves to me through the universe “ .

Yes, he has. and like a drunk who denies he has a drinking problem, so to you deny the God you know to exist.

“ I assume naturalism because that is what is most and best supported by all the available evidence, in my opinion. “

In this statement you are using autonomous human reason and naturalism to say your autonomous human reason and naturalistic epistemology are valid. Or to put it another way. You're using induction to support induction. This is in fact viciously circular. This is not universally problematic. Most world views are circular – However, it's import to be in the right circle with proper presuppositions & axiomatic foundations and authorities.

“ That things can be proven does not presuppose the existence of God. It presupposes that things can be proven. “

This is what's known as a tautology. You basically just said ( Paraphrasing ) “ Things can be proven because things can be proven “ That's not an argument, is circular in nature, and simply dismisses my claim without a basis.

“ But I don't interpret those things in terms of God, yet they are quite intelligible. “

Yes, I know you as a nihilist don't interpret those things in terms of God, and as a result you'll draw faulty conclusions by doing so, which is why we have modern “ scientists “ telling us that macro-evolution is true & that behaviors like the one exhibited in this meme are perfectly acceptable. This is what happens when naturalism & autonomous human reason are supported by faulty presuppositions and/or assumptions.

As far as them being intelligible - Not in your naturalistic framework they're not. Your world view says that you're nothing more than a highly evolved animal derived from piece of protoplasm which washed up on the beach one day for no reason whatsoever, and that your thoughts are nothing more than random, chemical reactions. In light of this, You can not account for any kind of moral obligation for intelligibility.

Part 2. “ Reason is abstract, that is true. Yes, fact is abstract, yet facts can be supported with evidence. “

Facts or knowledge claims are produced by data, and data must be interpreted. Since your senses are unreliable, The conclusions one draws from interpretation of data is wholly predicated on where they stand on the issue of God. If you start with the assumption of no God, your interpretation of data will flow from that position.

Let me give a perfect example of this. A theist asks an atheist to account for morality, and how do most atheists typically attempt to justify this? By evolution. Most atheists invariably point to evolution to justify morality by pointing to social species corroborating with one another or showing empathy. This has occurred in every conversation I've had with atheists on morality.

If the God of the bible exists, which he does, macro-evolution didn't occur, and neither would morality be a matter of evolution. If you draw faulty conclusions, other faulty conclusions will flow from this. This is precisely why much of modern “science” is a mess and one big house of cards. This is especially true in the applied scienceswhere science is dependent on prior “ scientific “ findings.

“ When you say that God must be presupposed, you haven't shown why that is the case. “

I just did above.

“ Also, even if reason and fact are abstract things, so what? Some things are abstract. “

The so what is that your materialistic world view and epistemology can not account for this. More specifically, it can't account for the fact that logic is universal, immaterial, and is true regardless of what opinions one holds. This flies directly in the face of the subjectivitism and relativism taught in lieu of objective truth, reality, and morality in most secular universities today.

“ What evidence is there that this is true? “

You invariably want to assume and point to naturalism in asking these questions. This is highly problematic for you and is actually making my argument for me. This isn't a question of “ evidence “ but of theistic epistemology which your naturalistic views reject nor can afford.

Part 3.

“ Universal laws point to a universe. They point to some semblance of order and predictability. They certainly can be accounted for in a naturalistic worldview. “

Which is a claim, not an argument for a claim. In light of how atheists believe this universe & life in it came into existence, your world view can not account for this. When I say “ account “ I'm not talking about just explaining why this is, but rather why this is within your naturalistic framework

“ No, it simply requires me to point out that based on the evidence I see, I can come to no other conclusion than that god does not exist. “

Which would once again be assuming naturalism and what's known in philosophy as a categorical error. Which is an ontological error which applies properties of one kind ( Naturalism and materialism ) to something ( God ) that does not and can not possesses those properties ( Supernaturalism & materialism )

Naturalism methods of inquiry could be used to see evidence of God's existence, but this would only be possible in a theistic world view where God was rightly presupposes, just as most of the Nobel prize winning Christian scientists of the past ( Like the father of quantum physics, Max Plank ) did.

Part 2. “ If our brains were intelligently designed, how come people are so susceptible to our brains playing tricks on us? “

Because of sin and the fall of man. The reason behind all the suffering in this world.

“ Actually, that's what your logical fallacies say. A strawman representation of biology ("you're nothing more than a highly evolved animal derived from piece of protoplasm which washed up on the beach one day") with a nice appeal to consequences ("for no reason whatsoever, and that your thoughts are nothing more than random, chemical reactions") thrown in for good measure. “

You've offered no counter perspective or argument to refute this. Which specific positions have I advocated here which are in error?

“ Everyone's senses are unreliable to an extent. “

Which actually argues for a theistic world view and against naturalism * fully * accounting for reality. Naturalism is wholly dependent on your senses.

“ Your eyes can play tricks on you. You can hear one sound but mistake it for another, etc. This shouldn't be the case if we were intelligently designed, I would think. “

It would be the case if you were living in a created world tainted by sin. Which I already explained above is exactly the case.

“ My interpretation of data is predicated on naturalism, and it has served me well. “

Your interpretation of data is predicated on your own limited senses & faulty presuppositions, which you just admitted in your prior statement are unreliable. That it has “ served you well “ speaks of selfish, arbitrary, preferences and pragmatism, not an argument for it being a valid, method by which to * fully * account for reality.

"" There is no proof for God " is a logically fallacious statement which would require you to hold infinite knowledge to make."

Or going into space to find no Heaven above the clouds.

"You'd have to be God to state " There's no proof for God ""

By that logic, you'd have to be transgender to say that transgender people are imposing their behavior upon society. Come to think of it, how are we doing that?

"Considering the illogical nature of the first part of your statement, I won't even bother with the second part."

Probably for the best. >:>

"Or going into space to find no Heaven above the clouds."

Which would be a Red Herring having nothing to do with this current discussion.

" By that logic, you'd have to be transgender to say that transgender people are imposing their behavior upon society. Come to think of it, how are we doing that? "

You're not answering my logic, but rather a strawman based on partial quote which was taken out of the context of a dependent clause which qualified it.

"Considering the illogical nature of the first part of your statement, I won't even bother with the second part."

Considering the first part of your answer to a partial quote was nothing more than a strawman, I'll give you the same consideration.

"Which would be a Red Herring having nothing to do with this current discussion."

Maybe, but when does science tell us there is a God?

"You're not answering my logic, but rather a strawman based on partial quote which was taken out of the context of a dependent clause which qualified it. "

Ok, then. I doubt you'd have to be God to say that there is no God. For a start, people say it all the time. Secondly, God wouldn't be there to say it if there was no God. (I'd like to know what exactly your argument is saying there..)

"Considering the first part of your answer to a partial quote was nothing more than a strawman, I'll give you the same consideration."

You do know the quote you quoted was a statement from you I quoted, right?

" Maybe, but when does science tell us there is a God? "

This would be yet another Red Herring, but I"ll entertain it anyways. Did you mean to ask " How can we deduce from science that there's a God ? "

If so, we can deduce from science that there is a God because only a theistic world view can account for the intelligibility and fixed laws necessary for practicing science and the universal, immaterial, laws of logic. Let me know if you want a more expansive explanation on this topic.

" Ok, then. I doubt you'd have to be God to say that there is no God."

Ok, well you can doubt that all you want, but you can't argue that.

" For a start, people say it all the time. "

What people " say " all the time is irrelevant, what can be argued is what matters.

" Secondly, God wouldn't be there to say it if there was no God. (I'd like to know what exactly your argument is saying there..) "

This makes no sense and is giving strong indication you don't have a clue what is even being discussed here. I can only conclude you don't posses the intellectual capacity for this conversation.

' You do know the quote you quoted was a statement from you I quoted, right? "

Yes, one which was taken out of context from a dependent clause which qualified it.