Sunday, July 3, 2016

How the world looks with or without God

Hello there! If you're one of the 4 or 5 people reading this because this article has been linked or referred to here by the ever-desperate-for-attention Skeppy and plagiarist Papalinton, then I've got a treat for you.

I'm going to explain why I pretty well ignore them, despite my demonstrated propensity to get in minor internet shit-arguments with atheists, theists, SJWs, conservatives, and pretty much anyone I stumble across.

Let's start with Linton. Well: he's a known plagiarist. This is beyond dispute, as he's been caught - multiple times! - not just plagiarizing others' words and passing them off as his own, but doing so expressly to cover up the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Let me repeat that, because it's pretty amazing: Linton rants and rages online not only against all things Christian, but against things that he literally *has no understanding of*, that he can't even describe. To cover that up, he will plagiarize from other sources online and then try to change the words so his plagiarism will be covered up. And then he fails, because really - he's incredibly stupid.

Speaking of stupidity, let's move on to Skeppy, aka IM-Stupid, aka IM-Credulous, etc. I'd give you a link demonstrating the many times Skep crossed the line from not just low-intelligence, but flat out into the realm of 'Good God, this guy is literally retarded, like football helmet and eating graham crackers and apple juice daily' mental defect. The link possibilities are considerable. Really, he's done everything like quote as 'expert' and 'authoritative on history' a guy whose geoecities-level webpage was actually some Mystery Babylon conspiracy site. Or the time that he kept insisting that a given author couldn't have meant what everyone else in the thread clearly read him as meaning, until said author literally showed up in the thread to confirm that Skep didn't even have basic reading skills. Oh, the skep-stupidity - it's abundant!

But that's the thing. It's so abundant, all you have to do is google for 'im-skeptical' and read his comment threads. Be sure to check out his time on Feser's blog where he became a laughingstock on the spot. Or you can check out his hall of shame on Dangerous Idea, where he was eventually banned simply for combining stupidity with the sheer volume of his comments. (Skep right now is reading that line and thinking 'That's stupid, you can't hear my comments dummy, they're text.' Like I said - he's a bit of a retard.)  Really, if you want a laugh, give it a whirl.

Anyway, I write all this because it's become necessary, since now and then people show up on here to tell me about the crazy rantings these two are engaged in. The problem is: I did this for years. There is literally nothing there to deal with. They have no content which is interesting, certainly not original, nor are they noteworthy - and they never will be. Atheists find them not worth their time, since there's atheists with actual accomplishments and writing skill to glom onto. Christians generally ignore them, since anything they say is said better elsewhere (remember: we're dealing with plagiarism and stupidity here). They're doomed to a mix of stupidity and obscurity. I've humiliated them enough; they now humiliate themselves without my efforts.

I thank Skep and Linton the opportunity to communicate these truth to the scant few who bother to read their site and who - after seeing the plagiarism of Linton and the stupidity of Skep - may realize that, atheist or no, they really have better things to do with their time. Enjoy, gents. ;)


















Sometimes apologetics comes across to me as bringing a tank to deal with a mugger. It's a tremendous amount of firepower - too much! - but also inadequate for the particular problem, power or not.

To see what I mean, consider this claim: 'The world looks exactly the way it should look if God didn't exist.' I've seen this come up before, more than once, and I suspect it undergirds a lot of people's irreligion or atheism. Intellectually, there's a way to describe it: weak. It's nothing but a subjective claim (not even an argument) with little in the way of intellectual content, little in the way of evidence. Powerful subjectively, but most self-described atheists aren't going to want to stick with it once the subjective, evidence-free aspect is pointed out to them.

But if you try to roll out a formulaic, logical argument against the view, you're generally going to get nowhere. Not because the arguments aren't good at what they do, but because they're just inadequate for this purpose. Kalam or the Five Ways doesn't answer a view like this, and with a view like this in place, many people aren't interested in Kalam or the Five Ways anyway. Nothing short of an explanation of metaphysics and God's role in relation to such will have much of a chance either, and an explanation of metaphysics isn't an apologetics argument at all. It's just information about the fundamental nature of the question to begin with, and why their view is just an intuition about a topic which is a hell of a lot larger than they realize.

Apologists don't seem to 'get' the value of that kind of information, or really the value of a perspective as opposed to a conclusion. It's too long-term, too big-picture. Their goal is to get people to Christ, now. How to lay the groundwork for even taking Christ seriously is an issue they seem to have trouble recognizing at all.

4 comments:

B. Prokop said...

What dose the world look like "without God"? I'll tell you:



That's what. (Nothing, non-existence, zero, nada.)

Hmm... The world doesn't look that way at all. I guess there must be a God then.

Craig said...

So, what's the right approach? Socratic questioning would work if the person has any taste for philosophy, but that's a distinct minority.

B. Prokop said...

Check out the approach I'm taking over on my own blog, Celestial Pilgrimage. Pay special attention to one or more of the following postings: You did it for Me, Perspective, Foxholes, Community, Encounter, Revelation, Averted Vision, Light, All That Black, and Starhopping.

I've had it with arguing with gnus who hypocritically claim rationality whilst showing not the least indication that they know what the word means. If the horse refuses to drink, it's pointless to lead him to the trough. So I don't debate the Faith any more - I proclaim it. I'll leave it up to the Holy Spirit as to whether or not the seed falls on good ground.

Crude said...

Craig,

In this particular case? Literally, just explaining the fundamentals of metaphysics is what I think is called for. Which you do need a kind of knack for, and you have to be dealing with someone who's actually willing to listen.