I do not think this is a good strategy. Allow me to clarify. I agree that abortion (except in certain rare circumstances) is murder. But that is exactly what those opposed to abortion are trying to convince people of. It does no good to start with that as a premise. Those who are pro-abortion will simply say it’s not murder — just like those who are pro-“capital punishment” say it’s not murder. It is better to start with things that are not in dispute. It cannot be reasonably disputed that abortion involves killing. Those who are pro-abortion will have their beliefs that it is somehow justified. But only those who wish to silence the discussion in a dishonest manner will attempt to claim that there is no life to kill. After all, we can admit that we kill roaches. If someone has to pretend that abortion is not killing, he is as dishonest as any fundamentalist christian.
Norman is again talking about the “illogic of the evil atheists.” (His blog can be found at stormbringer005.blogspot.com) Alex has already done a good post about the current rant. I would, however, like to note a few things. Norman never identifies or attributes the “atheist sites” that he says that he is copying from. I think there is a very simple reason for this. He creates “mock atheist sites” for this express purpose. And if anyone were to examine his sources, he would find an absence of non-christian contribution. He also blurs out names and images when they might identify sources. I think the same reason applies. Norman does not allow comments. He doesn’t want any truth stepping in, however briefly, to ruin his carefully crafted deception. When he links to anything (like a “reliable news source”) it is always a fundamentalist christian site. It is quite clear that he wants to avoid anyone doing any independent research. If anybody finds any non-christian confirmation or criticism, it won’t be because he facilitated the endeavor.
Sadly, I have to disagree with Alex. It is not YouTube’s place to act as arbiters of copyright infringement. Their obligations, when a notice is received,are to do a preliminary take-down to give the copyright holder an opportunity to file his lawsuit. Then they are to take whatever action is in accordance with either the agreement between the parties or the judgement of the court. While I agree that Sye has dishonestly infringed on Alex’s lawful copyright, he has not court judgement against him. With no such judgement, the right thing to do (on YouTube’s part) was to reinstate the video. They do not have the authority to issue a ruling of their own, nor should they. As to the rest of Alex’s relevant post, his objections are with the legal system, not with YouTube.
Yes, it would be nice, in this instance, to see YouTube rule against Sye in its own power. But that would set a dangerous precedent. YouTube took actions that were entirely predictable and mechanical. They left all the decisions to others with appropriate authority. And that is as it should be.
A common mistake that non-christians make is to believe that the people who wrote the bible really believed what they were saying. They did not. They knew full well that they were spinning a web of lies. They also knew that, sooner or later, someone would call them on it. So they put provisions in the bible to shun such dissenters. One of those provisions was the line “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. ” They may well have believed that there were angels in a heaven that might come along to correct their vile falsehoods. That passage ensured that their suckers wouldn’t listen.
One of the commenter’s on Dan’s blog asks a very interesting question. “If you assume your reasoning is corrupt without ‘revelation.,’ how can you use your corrupt reasoning to determine the validity of the given ‘revelation’?” (I hope the poster will forgive me for not using his name. It is not easy for me to remember and gives me a “huh?” reaction just looking at it.)
The question illustrates a very important point. Each person must assume his reasoning is valid before he can proceed. One cannot even argue for “preconditions” to said reasoning without first assuming the one’s reasoning valid even in the absence of those preconditions because one must use his reasoning even in arguing for the preconditions.
This brings up something I have said before. Calling on someone to “justify” his reasoning is dishonest. Everyone starts with the validity of his reasoning as a premise. Some fundamentalist christians pretend to have a “basis” for their reasoning. But… fundamentalist christians gotta lie.
He claims that one cannot trust one’s senses without first getting “revelation.” He further claims that this revelation consists of the world we see around us (according to him pointing to some god) and the writings of the bible. There is an obvious problem with this approach. If one does not already trust one’s senses, there is no reason to take that “revelation” as anything but an illusion. I have to trust my senses before I can even begin to decide whether that is a revelation or not. As it turns out, I decide that it is no revelation.
Look, it’s very simple. Either you can use reason to come to a belief in some god, or you can’t. If you can, then logic and reason are valid independent of any god. (But, if your reasoning is good, you might get me to believe.) If you can’t, then you adopt a strictly faith-based position with no evidence. You have no hope of persuading me that your belief is true. Now, as long as your not trying to shove your beliefs down my throat or enshrine them into law, I probably don’t care whether your beliefs are true or not. Unfortunately, fundamentalist christians have this nasty habit of trying to create bad laws.
When dealing with what Dan and other fundamentalist christians say, it helps to remember a simple fact. Fundamentalist christians gotta lie.
Well, what can I say? Fundamentalist christians gotta lie.