A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Animated GIFs & Nonsense

Moderators: Ice Cream Jonsey, AArdvark

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Tdarcos » Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:59 pm

I've been reading The Assault On Freedom In America, a 2018 book by Mac Taylor (not to be confused with the fictional Mac Taylor of CSI:NY, although much of what the real Mac Taylor has to say should be classified as fiction) and there is one point where the guy is stupid. I think if I wasn't reading it for free on Kindle Unlimited I'd want my money back.

Okay, Taylor's trying to argue that Hunan rights do not come from man, but from our creator, and our creator, of course, is God. So, what he proceeds to do next, despite he is claiming not to debate over God, is an apologetic. If you haven't followed religion vs. atheism debates, an apologetic is an argument in favor of the position (always for the religious side, because atheism doesn't need apologetics). Most of the aplogetics I've seen are Christian Apologetics, although there are others. (We don't see much of, say Muslim Apologetics here because there was very little interest in that religion, and even less after 9/11 gave Islam a very serious self-inflicted black eye.)

Anyway, one thing all religious apologetics have, is dishonesty, and / or error. They either say things known to be false, or they use fallacious reasoning (such as logic errors) to produce invalid conclusions. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, "I've been listening to Christian Apologetics for twenty-five years, and I haven't heard a single new argument in decades that hasn't been used before and proved wrong."

No apologetic has ever given reasons or evidence to support their conclusions, because they have no reasons, and they have no evidence. Their position is not based on reason, and if they had evidence they would not have to argue that faith is required. Taylor does not disappoint here (although I think."disappoint" is the wrong word. ) His entire argument is basically he believes this because he wants to believe it, without a scintilla of evidence to back up his conclusions.

So, anyway, Taylor tries to argue for the existence of God (not specifically saying which God, but while not explicitly saying the Christian one, he does so somewhat implicitly). by pointing out nature can make obsidian (a type of volcanic glass) by spewing chunks out of volcanoes, while people can produce structured bottles of an exact form, and duplicate them millions of times, something nature can't do. We can also produce the same obsidian nature does. But we can't produce something living, like a human being, from scratch, and neither can nature. This is not the same as reproduction, which is the production of life from existing life. The creation of life from scratch required a higher power. As he put it, "Man is but a mere image or shadow of the greater eternal consciousness, in my view. The Divine or Supreme consciousness is a much higher and eternal order of consciousness than man, in my view as well." This is, of course, the logical fallacy of special pleading. If this entity exists how did it get here? If it is eternal, why can't other things (like the universe itself) also be eternal?

He also mentions the complexity of DNA, and its enormous information capacity, ignoring the fact that because DNA is not "designed" but developed spontaneously, that a significant part of DNA is what they call " junk DNA" that is no longer operational (things that were evolved out of) or never was a part of the entity. 15% of human DNA is non-functional. If human beings were designed as is (by an intelligent creator), why would 15% be surplus material?

He also quoted from Ben Stein's movie Expelled, which has been discredited for dishonest editing to support quote mining.

What is worse, in a book written in 2018, he procedes to argue "irreducible complexity" the idea that some biological functions had to be as they are to work, and could not have evolved from something simpler. He bases this on the work of Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University. He does not mention this gentleman's most famous work, the textbook Of Pandas and People, which was originally intended for public schools, and taught Creation Science. When in 1987, the Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard found Creation Science to be just religion in disguise, (and illegal to teach as science) this book was hastily edited to change it to Intelligent design.

That didn't last long. There is a case that voluminously proved Irreducible complexity wrong, and that Intelligent Design is just, again, the wolf of religion trying to hide in the sheep's clothing of science. Everyone involved in the Creation Science or Intelligent Design movement knows about this case, and his failure to reference it means one of two things. If Taylor knew about it and didn't mention it, he's dishonest; if he didn't know about it, he's too uninformed to be writing on the subject. The 2005 case is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Behe was a witness, and both he and Irreducible Complexity were discredited, and "Intelligent Design" was just the rebranded "Creation Science." But Taylor completely ignores the Kitzmiller case as if it never happened. As any typical apologetic must, the truth must be ignored or the lies will be exposed for what they are.
"He starts to shake and cough, just like the old man in, that book by Nabakov."
- The Police

User avatar
pinback
Posts: 13239
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:00 pm
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by pinback » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:33 pm

You are spending way too much energy trying to disprove something which is ridiculous and insane on the face of it. To anyone with half a brain, this is all obvious, and to those without, you will never convince them otherwise.
Above all else... We shall go on... And continue!

User avatar
Flack
Posts: 6009
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Oklahoma
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Flack » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:51 pm

Tdarcos wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:59 pm
I've been reading The Assault On Freedom In America, a 2018 book by Mac Taylor (not to be confused with the fictional Mac Taylor of CSI:NY, although much of what the real Mac Taylor has to say should be classified as fiction) and there is one point where the guy is stupid. I think if I wasn't reading it for free on Kindle Unlimited I'd want my money back.

Okay, Taylor's trying to argue that Hunan rights do not come from man, but from our creator, and our creator, of course, is God. So, what he proceeds to do next, despite he is claiming not to debate over God, is an apologetic. If you haven't followed religion vs. atheism debates, an apologetic is an argument in favor of the position (always for the religious side, because atheism doesn't need apologetics). Most of the aplogetics I've seen are Christian Apologetics, although there are others. (We don't see much of, say Muslim Apologetics here because there was very little interest in that religion, and even less after 9/11 gave Islam a very serious self-inflicted black eye.)

Anyway, one thing all religious apologetics have, is dishonesty, and / or error. They either say things known to be false, or they use fallacious reasoning (such as logic errors) to produce invalid conclusions. To paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, "I've been listening to Christian Apologetics for twenty-five years, and I haven't heard a single new argument in decades that hasn't been used before and proved wrong."

No apologetic has ever given reasons or evidence to support their conclusions, because they have no reasons, and they have no evidence. Their position is not based on reason, and if they had evidence they would not have to argue that faith is required. Taylor does not disappoint here (although I think."disappoint" is the wrong word. ) His entire argument is basically he believes this because he wants to believe it, without a scintilla of evidence to back up his conclusions.

So, anyway, Taylor tries to argue for the existence of God (not specifically saying which God, but while not explicitly saying the Christian one, he does so somewhat implicitly). by pointing out nature can make obsidian (a type of volcanic glass) by spewing chunks out of volcanoes, while people can produce structured bottles of an exact form, and duplicate them millions of times, something nature can't do. We can also produce the same obsidian nature does. But we can't produce something living, like a human being, from scratch, and neither can nature. This is not the same as reproduction, which is the production of life from existing life. The creation of life from scratch required a higher power. As he put it, "Man is but a mere image or shadow of the greater eternal consciousness, in my view. The Divine or Supreme consciousness is a much higher and eternal order of consciousness than man, in my view as well." This is, of course, the logical fallacy of special pleading. If this entity exists how did it get here? If it is eternal, why can't other things (like the universe itself) also be eternal?

He also mentions the complexity of DNA, and its enormous information capacity, ignoring the fact that because DNA is not "designed" but developed spontaneously, that a significant part of DNA is what they call " junk DNA" that is no longer operational (things that were evolved out of) or never was a part of the entity. 15% of human DNA is non-functional. If human beings were designed as is (by an intelligent creator), why would 15% be surplus material?

He also quoted from Ben Stein's movie Expelled, which has been discredited for dishonest editing to support quote mining.

What is worse, in a book written in 2018, he procedes to argue "irreducible complexity" the idea that some biological functions had to be as they are to work, and could not have evolved from something simpler. He bases this on the work of Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University. He does not mention this gentleman's most famous work, the textbook Of Pandas and People, which was originally intended for public schools, and taught Creation Science. When in 1987, the Supreme Court, in Edwards v. Aguillard found Creation Science to be just religion in disguise, (and illegal to teach as science) this book was hastily edited to change it to Intelligent design.

That didn't last long. There is a case that voluminously proved Irreducible complexity wrong, and that Intelligent Design is just, again, the wolf of religion trying to hide in the sheep's clothing of science. Everyone involved in the Creation Science or Intelligent Design movement knows about this case, and his failure to reference it means one of two things. If Taylor knew about it and didn't mention it, he's dishonest; if he didn't know about it, he's too uninformed to be writing on the subject. The 2005 case is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which Behe was a witness, and both he and Irreducible Complexity were discredited, and "Intelligent Design" was just the rebranded "Creation Science." But Taylor completely ignores the Kitzmiller case as if it never happened. As any typical apologetic must, the truth must be ignored or the lies will be exposed for what they are.
wut
"Jack Flack always escapes." -Davey Osborne

User avatar
Ice Cream Jonsey
Posts: 21794
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Ice Cream Jonsey » Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:25 pm

Tdarcos wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 3:59 pm
I've been reading The Assault On Freedom In America, a 2018 book by Mac Taylor (not to be confused with the fictional Mac Taylor of CSI:NY, although much of what the real Mac Taylor has to say should be classified as fiction) and there is one point where the guy is stupid. I think if I wasn't reading it for free on Kindle Unlimited I'd want my money back.
I'll send you a couple cyberpunk books if you never ready this mind-poisoning trash again. It's dangerous!!
the dark and gritty...Ice Cream Jonsey!

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 7845
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by AArdvark » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:02 am

There's a reason why this garbage was free on Kindle

8 LINE LIMIT

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by 8 LINE LIMIT » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:48 pm

HAY GUYS DID SOMEONE CALL???

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Tdarcos » Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:15 pm

8 LINE LIMIT wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:48 pm
HAY GUYS DID SOMEONE CALL???
My understanding is the 8-line limit does not apply to the troll room, or to on-topic programming responses, and lately has not been enforced, probably because nobody wants to "pick on" a one-legged man. As American Express says, "Your other 'leg. Don't leave home without it.®"
"He starts to shake and cough, just like the old man in, that book by Nabakov."
- The Police

User avatar
Ice Cream Jonsey
Posts: 21794
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Ice Cream Jonsey » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:32 pm

Yeah, Paul's got us there. Who is gonna tell him to reel it in? Me? You, Lt. Weinberg?

The Commander outlasted us all.

We've had 70 pages of dead guys and he's still here.

He'll be the last man -- well.
the dark and gritty...Ice Cream Jonsey!

User avatar
pinback
Posts: 13239
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 3:00 pm
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by pinback » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:51 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:32 pm
Yeah, Paul's got us there. Who is gonna tell him to reel it in? Me? You, Lt. Weinberg?

The Commander outlasted us all.

We've had 70 pages of dead guys and he's still here.

He'll be the last man -- well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_kwXNVCaxY
Above all else... We shall go on... And continue!

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 7845
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by AArdvark » Sat Sep 14, 2019 5:30 pm

The last man LEANING!

THE
JOKER HIDEOUT
AARDVARK

User avatar
Ice Cream Jonsey
Posts: 21794
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 2:44 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Ice Cream Jonsey » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:38 pm

Tdarcos wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 3:15 pm
8 LINE LIMIT wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:48 pm
HAY GUYS DID SOMEONE CALL???
My understanding is the 8-line limit does not apply to the troll room, or to on-topic programming responses, and lately has not been enforced, probably because nobody wants to "pick on" a one-legged man. As American Express says, "Your other 'leg. Don't leave home without it.®"
Also, I counted the lines. 7.8 lines. That other guy was on some weird Paki computer or something.
the dark and gritty...Ice Cream Jonsey!

User avatar
AArdvark
Posts: 7845
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 6:12 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by AArdvark » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:56 pm

If it wasn't the Commander it'd be a spam post.


THE
FORGIVENESS
AARDVARK

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 5433
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

Re: A typically dishonest religious apologetic

Post by Tdarcos » Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:24 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:32 pm
Yeah, Paul's got us there. Who is gonna tell him to reel it in? Me? You, Lt. Weinberg?
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
"He starts to shake and cough, just like the old man in, that book by Nabakov."
- The Police

Post Reply