Alex had posted three questions that Dan kept dodging: “how can you be certain a revelation is genuine when you lack the ability to know anything ‘for certain’ (by your own argument) before said revelation?” “how is your god not illogical when he displays traits which are mutually exclusive?” and “do you accept that a being of sufficient power could fool you into thinking you’d had a revelation from your particular version of your particular god?” To date, Dan has only given cop-outs on these, and he has blocked further comments — presumably so that he cannot be reminded of the way he failed to answer.
I would like to address his cop-outs, because otherwise some might claim he answered. To the first question, he claims that his god “revealed himself” to all mankind “in such a way that we can be certain.” This is quite evidently false. He has not revealed himself to me in any manner — let alone one in which I could be sure the revelation was not a lie. In order for us to have a meaningful certitude, we must have a means of assessing the veracity of the revelation prior to the revelation itself. To the second question, Dan claims that the mutually-exclusive traits assigned to his god are not mutually-exclusive. These traits include being omnibenevolent (i.e. not willing any harm to come to anyone) and willing willing the day-to-day harms that each of us experience (nothing can occur not according to his will.) These are mutually exclusive. To the third, he gives the cop-out that Alex does not understand the definition of “omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.” Dan refuses to acknowledge that the question does not suppose such a being exists. The question is (assuming there is no omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent being to prevent it) could a sufficiently empowered liar get Dan (or anyone else in particular) to believe the liar to have these qualities that he does not, in fact, have? The answer is a simple “yes,” unless Dan can show a means of immunity to deception that does not rely on the being whose honesty is in question.
I would also like to make a note here. Fundamentalist christians wish that dissenters would shut up. Most of them forcibly silence dissenters where they have the power to do so. But the blanket silencing that they so desire is beyond their power. It is quite clear that no omnipotent being desires that you not read this. If any omnipotent being had such a desire, he would make it so. If there is an omnipotent being, he doesn’t care.
I disagree. Major companies don’t like unions because they prevent the “race to the bottom.” Without unions, minimum wage would go away. You could work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week and get $5 for that week. Do you think major companies want to keep worker protections? They lobby hard to get rid of them. They know that your typical worker is far too busy to go to Washington himself. And paying a lobbyist is out of the question. Union dues help pay for worker advocates. Otherwise, all the Congressmen will hear is how the companies “can be trusted to regulate themselves.”
Let’s face it. The reason why companies like China so much is because their workers are starving. And they stay that way even with a job. They just starve a little slower. They don’t get enough to eat.
As many of you know, I consider “evolution,” and in particular, “universal common descent” to be dogmas that are the subject of indoctrination in schools. And I am quite aware that many of you disagree with me. You insist that there is sufficient evidence or even “proof” of evolution. Yet this evidence keeps falling back on “the scientific community said so.”
If the scientific community came to accept an unfalsifiable pseudo-science as “valid science,” could you tell, and, if so, how? What would you expect to be a tell-tale sign? Obviously, they wouldn’t openly claim to be pursuing a pseudo-science. Presumably, they wouldn’t even think that was what they were doing.
“What he said reminded me of many christians. They do not care about truth, accuracy, integrity, the rights of others;or even obeying the law. (For that matter, these types not only oppose free speech, but oppose your right to think for yourself if you disagree with them.) No, they want to be childish and attack people and “excite their base”. Then they get praise from other weak-minded fundamentalists for their ridicule.
“But they;will not;get attention from people who matter.
“Some of them keep using that word (libel). It does not mean what they think it does. It’s amazing how some people who cannot comprehend basic logic somehow consider themselves experts in law. Even if I did libel a fundamentalist troll, he would have to show how he was damaged; his own history would be brought forward and hilarity would ensue.”
I do not include a source because the whole post doesn’t serve any purpose other than amusement. But I got a kick out of it, and thought I would quote it.
I do this for a very simple reason. I don’t want to be robbed. It doesn’t mean I think robbery is “okay” when done against people stupid enough to leave their doors unlocked. It doesn’t mean I think most people are robbers. Most people, in fact, are honest. It is the dishonest few that concern me. Nor do I think that my actions are a guarantee against being robbed. It just makes my home less attractive to robbers. Furthermore, if you leave your door standing wide open, and you get robbed, the police will criticize you for having left your door standing wide open. This does not mean that they support a “robbery culture.” It doesn’t mean they think the robbery was okay. It means they think that your sheer stupidity has made more work for them.