Stupid Leftists Tricks II

Stupid Leftists Tricks II, Or ... so why is your fist still in my pocket?

One of the favorite stupid tricks of leftists is to assert the existence of imaginary "rights" ... which generally seem to cash-out as the assertion of ownership of other people's cash. Which is to say, the non-existent "rights" that leftists assert are really assertions of ownership of other people; for to claim ownership-by-right to the fruit of another man's labor just is to assert ownership of the man himself. In case you're still not getting it, this means *you* -- when leftists assert these non-existent "rights", they are generally asserting that they, as the self-designated spokesmen for some collective or other, own you, as an individual (*).

This is an easy way to tell that an assertion of some novel right is bullocks -- if the asserted novel right denigrates someone else's actually existing rights, then there is no such right. Consider, for example, the so-called "woman's right to choose", which is to say, the assertion that a woman has the right to procure an abortion for any reason or no reason at any point in her pregnancy. There are a number of actual rights denegrated by this non-right; the major one being, of course, the right of the pre-born child to not be murdered.


(*) Among other things, this claim of ownership of other people in the name of some collective is one way that you can tell that the so-called "alt-right" advocated by the remarkably dishonest 'Vox Day' is really just another flavor of leftism. His "alt-right" is an "alternative" to the right because it is not rightist.

===============================
So, let us consider Victor Reppert's recent leftism-based attempts to claim having a "right" to "free" health care and/or health insurance. See here for background, including why it is that he is no longer merely a "liberal", as we misuse that term in America, but has graduated to open support of leftism. Understand, I am not saying that he has graduated to the ranks of the puppet-masters; no, he is still as much (in Lenin's memorable phrase) the "useful idiot" as ever, dancing as the string-jerks dictate. But he has stopped objecting to the strings because ... "free" shit!

As I said before, as best I can tell, the following is his response to what I wrote at the above link --

Here is the problem. Not even conservatives want to say that people should be able to keep all they earn. Money for defense in necessary. It it taken from people in exactly the same way that money for Medicare or socialized medicine is taken, through taxation.

The military protects me from ISIS. Medicine protects me from cancer. No conservative ever complains about a socialized military. They all complain about socialized medicine. Why? Protection is protection.

Taking is Taking, Part I
First, note that the "problem" of the first two sentences doesn't even exist; it has been invented by conflating unlike things, namely, limited-and-specific taxation of everyone so as to fund a necessary common/public good, on the one hand, and unlimited-and-nonspecific taxation of *some* (politically disfavored) persons so as to redistribute the monies to other (politically favored) private parties, on the other hand.

Protecting is Protecting, Part I
I could *swear* that I had already dealt with this "protection from ISIS" ploy in my previous post ... along with noting that Mr Reppert's leftist puppet-masters work overtime to make that particular governmental duty, along with "protection from criminals", more difficult for the various appropriate levels of government to acheive.

Note, not only are "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" governmental duties, and not only are these actions two instances or aspects of the same duty of government, but this duty is the primary duty of government. And the primary duty of government (*) -- the duty that legitimizes a government (**) -- is not some vague all-purpose "protection" of those it rules, but rather that it enact justice on their behalf, so that they don't have to enact vengence, which begets vendetta.

It is unjust for ISIS to maim or murder Mr Reppert. It is unjust for Joe Schmoe to rob or maim or murder Mr Reppert. AND, it is unjust for Mr Reppert to assert that *he* is owed any of the wealth already owned or newly-created by Joe Schmoe.

But, notice also, that "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" are societal goods; they do not accrue to any particular individual, but to all of us, corporately. Even imprisoning the specific criminal who bopped Mr Reppert is not about "protecting" Mr Reppert specifically; it is about justice-in-society. If it "protects" Mr Reppert, well and fine, for he, too, is a member of the society ruled by this government.

Notice also, that "protection from ISIS" and "protection from criminals" are directed against identifiable actors or agents, not against vague non-entities such as "terrorism" or "cancer".


(*) Leftists *hate* justice; this is why they work over-time to increase injustice in the world, whether by coddling criminals and encouraging crime, whether by crippling the military and encouraging foreign or terrorist attacks, or whether by teaching the people to assert ownership of their fellow subjects.

(**) A government that cannot -- or *will not* -- deliver justice for those it rules is illegitimate, and will not long endure.

Protecting is Protecting, Part II
As mentioned above, the primary duty of legitimate government is to enact justice on behalf of the people it rules; or, to put it another way, the primary duty of legitimate government is to exact vengence and retribution against those who unjustly use its subjects.

It is impossible for any government to "protect" is subjects, that is, to always prevent injustices against them before the injustice occurs. Even a police state cannot do that ... and none of us (except the lefties) want to live in a police state in any event. Hence, since direct "protection" of its subjects is impossible, we have no choice but to settle for after-the-fact indirect "protection" via the exacting of vengence and retribution against the evil-doers.

Taking is Taking, Part II
I trust Gentle Reader recalls the infamous and anti-Constitutional Kelo decision, in which the "liberal" members of the US supreme Court turned the Constitution's "takings clause" on its head, so as to justify governmental confiscation of one person's property for the purpose of giving it to another person.

The very same "principle" animates Mr Reppert's demand that monies be confiscated from you and me and given to him (whether directly or indirectly via subsidies).

It is a perennial sin of mankind to attempt to live off the sweat of another man's brow -- and it is a perennial sin of leftists to stand that statement on its head as they attempt to paint their covetous envy with the colors of righteousness, and thereby "justify" their own desire to live off the sweat of another man's brow.

Slavery is slavery ... even when you vote on it and call it "fairness".


Rights vs "Rights"

[to be continued]

So, why is your fist still in my pocket?

Doubling Down

As best I can tell, this is Victor Reppert's response to my previous eviseration of his "argument" for why it is that he is *owed* "free" health insurance --

Here is the problem. Not even conservatives want to say that people should be able to keep all they earn. Money for defense in necessary. It it taken from people in exactly the same way that money for Medicare or socialized medicine is taken, through taxation.

The military protects me from ISIS. Medicine protects me from cancer. No conservative ever complains about a socialized military. They all complain about socialized medicine. Why? Protection is protection.

I'll blow this out of the water later; in the meantime, do bask in the Deep Thinks.

No man can serve two masters [modified]

For as long as I've known him, Victor Reppert has been a "soft" leftist (*). Recently, he has decided to climb down off the fence he had been stradling (working backward in time --
1) see here
2) and here
3) and here
4) and here
5) and here
6) and here
7) and here ).

In the comment I have numbered #6, VR said:

The following two positions are consistent with one another.

1) Abortion is murder.
2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion.

The arguments for 1 are never identical to the arguments against 2. Arguments supporting 1 do not prove that 2 is false. So 1 and 2 are compatible.

I blew that "reasoning" out of the water --

VR, doubling down now that he's off the fence: "The following two positions are consistent with one another."

No, they aren't.

The Constitution says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Murder can never be "constitutional"

And, of course (since he's off the fence), he totally ignored that I had shown his "reasoning" to be false, and instead made a new OP based on it.


(*) That is, as we in America misuse the term "liberal" since the "progressives" hijacked it some decades ago after calling themselves "progressive" had become a political liability, for as long as I've know him he has been a "liberal". As such, he could always be counted on to eventually toe the leftist party line, no matter the demand.

========
So, that brings up up-to-date for the subject of this post.

Recently, Mr Reppert quoted Chesterton:

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).

To which I replied:

Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?

To which, in that intellectually dishonest way we all cherish about leftists, he replied (in a new OP)

Ilion: Is a free man free to keep the wealth he produces and to use it as he sees fit, rather than to have it confiscated by vote-buying politicians?

VR: Sure! So, let us say that you can afford to defend yourself against ISIS terrorists and dangerous foreign governments. You earned the money to do so, after all. But the bleeding-heart vote-buying politicians who run the government want to confiscate your money so that they can defend not only you, but all those welfare queens in the middle and lower classes, who, after all, only want to be defended against terrorism using other people's money. And why, in the name of Ayn Rand, should they be allowed to do such a thing?

Now that he's off the fence, look for continued (and amped-up) leftist irrationality from Mr Reppert, and also more intellectual dishonesty as displayed in the above "response".

Non-exhaustively --

1) Defense of the people it rules against outside aggression is one of the (few) legitimate actions of *any* government; and, in fact, governments lose legitimacy when they refuse to do so (and, eventually, such governments cease to exist);

2) No one -- except leftists -- denies that it is a legitimate, and indeed necessary function of the US federal government to defend the people it rules against outside aggressors, such as ISIS;

3) And, in fact, Mr Reppert and his fellow leftists are working overtime to make it impossible for the US federal government to perform its few and explicitly enumnerated functions, such as defending the people it rules against outside aggressors, while piling on unsustainable demands that it perform functions what are wholly outside it perview;

4) Ayn Rand? Seriously?


=================
Edit:
Now let's look at this in a bit more depth. First, look again at the Chesterton quote --

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” Chesterton (1935).

What Chesterton is doing is illuminating the very Christian (and "conservative") principle that not all sins can safely be made crimes.

Next, let's pretend that we can't see the blatant intellectual dishonesty in Mr Reppert's pseudo-response to my question concerning how far he's willing to stand by the principle he seemed to approve when he first quoted Chesterton. That is, let's look at what he's *really* saying, which is, by the classic "reasoning" of leftist pseudo-Christianity, to accuse me and all conservatives of being "selfish" and "greedy".

AND, let's pretend that the accusation really is true (*).

SO, the question is: Part #1 Is "greed" or "selfishness" really a sin? Part #2: And if it is a sin, is it one that can with-safety to men's freedom be made a crime; or, is it one of the things best left to God?

Now, the answer to Part #1 is: "No". To be more precise, actual greed is sinful; but leftists aren't referring to actual greed when they accuse others of being "greedy".

And the answer to Part #2 is: again, "No". If we were talking about actual greed, it is a sin that cannot safely be made criminal, and so it must be left to God. MOREOVER, as we are talking about the letftist's false use of the word, that danger to others' freedom is precisely their object.


(*) At the same time, do keep in mind that Mr Reppert had publically bitched about the "unfairness" of *his* taxes increasing after he supported the policies and voted for the politicians that were supposedly going to "make the 'rich' pay their 'fair' share".

=================
Apparently, the price of Mr Reppert's soul was the (unsustainable) promise of "free", or at least subsidized, health insurance (not even "care", just "insurance") ... to be paid for by others under threat of death at the hands of agents of The State.

This is where those promises will lead (I said 'lead', not 'end'; the end will be even worse) (*). Let us pray, and I mean this in all Christian concern for his immortal soul, that when his "free" "health care" comes to put him down, he doesn't waste his breath protesting, "But I don't want to die", but rather that he repents of the sinful horror that he has willingly and wilfully helped to set up.

(*) Oddly enough, Mr Reppert seems to object to that totally predictable stage on the Road to Hell; at any rate, so long as it is "greedy" corporations making the calls.

'Ilion, you are out of bounds here'

This is me laughing at that assertion.

Recently, Victor Reppert put up a post called "Joe Hinman turns Derrida on his head ". To that title, I responded with: "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?"

And Joe Hinman, being who and what he is, responded with:

Eric Sotnack who teaches Philosophy at Akron helped me structure the argument, So a professional philosopher who is an atheist thinks it's valid.

show me a grammatical error I'e committed. do you even know the grammar, spelling, and punctuation>?

Ignoring the first paragraph, which naturally had nothing to do with what I said, I responded with: "^ I leave it to Gentle Reader to supply his own guffaws."

This was too much for that professional "nice" guy, Victor Reppert (*), who decided to jump in with:

Ilion, you are out of bounds here. However you may disagree with him, especially on politics, we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing. My doctoral dissertation advisor, Hugh Chandler, was the same way.

I responded with:

I am never "out of bounds"; I say the truth that you do not wish said. Said or unsaid, reality remain what it is -- "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?".

It seems that you have as little respect for this particular prancing fool as I do, albeit differently grounded (**).

If he is dyslexic, then that is *his* problem, and it is up to him to take the care that what he posts isn't so scrambled that no one else has the faintest clue as to what he means.

And, in any event, his underlying problem isn't dyslexia, it's illogic ... and vicious leftism.

By the way, my immediate supervisor is dyslexic ... and he doesn't need anyone to run interference for him when we can't make heads nor tails of what he means to communicate to us.

Now, the thing is, I mostly ignore Joe Hinman, precisely because he is an irrational fool; but given Reppert's title, it was just too much temptation to resist my initial quip. I mean, Derrida (***)!

And the other thing is, Joe Hinman not only seems to be unable to ignore me, but he also seems to have a hard time resisting attacking me. This is what Reppert is alluding to with "However you may disagree with him, especially on politics"; you know, that old "even-handedness" for which "even-handed" people are so noted -- if Hinman says the most outrageous lies about me, that's just a difference of opinion, but if I laugh about Hinman's grammar-on-its-head disputation of my statement that he regularly turns grammar on its head, well, that's "out of bounds".

AND, actually, it's not true that "we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing". "All" includes me, doesn't it? I didn't know this claim about him.

And knowing it, I don't care.



(*) Who will *never* pipe up with the smallest of trillings when Joe Hinman (or any other leftist, or 'atheist') makes the most outrageous, and easily seen to be false, assertions about me or about any other anti-leftist.

(**) I think he's an adult and a moral agent who chooses to be a fool; Reppert apparently thinks he's a child below "the age of accountability" who must be shielded from the consequences of his own choices.

(***) Turning logic and language on their heads was Derrida's specialty and his claim to fame.

The pressure seems too much

It seems that the pressure of freeing one's mind of the evils and lies of leftism may be too much for some to bear. Of late, Bob Prokop seems to be trying to get free of the falsehoods to which he has devoted so much of his life and effort. And, of course, given human nature, and the nature of belief-systems, and the nature of leftism in supplying its adherents with hefty doses of self-righteousness, one does expect relapses.

It appears that for B.Prokop, the proverbial straw prompting him to try to de-leftify himself has been the epiphany that even though Catholicism, Inc. has faithfully acted the good little bitch to Progressivism (i.e. American Leftism) for well over a century, in their present seeming cultural triumph, this batch of leftists have as little use for, or respect of, The One True Bureaucracy, or of Roman Catholic persons who happen to be Christians (in contrast to the Kennedys and Pelosis and Bidens and such-what), as any other batch of leftists has ever had.

First, let's examine an example of intellectual dishonesty involving someone who is not B.Prokop, so that one may more easily recognize for what it is the example that does involve him --

Over at Victor Reppert's blog, in the Marriage legal and moral thread, B.Prokop had posted this:

"making a judgement of the moral character of the wedding participants ... is the issue that I have been saying matters most"

I think this is what frightens me the most about this whole debate. People like Doug seem perfectly ready (and even eager) to employ the full weight of state power to compel others to not only act in certain ways, but also to think in proscribed fashions. The above quote is crystal clear. The pro same sex marriage side wishes to make disagreeing with them a thought crime, punishable by the loss of one's job, business, livelihood, whatever it takes.

And you think this is improbable? That "it can't happen here"? Well. Over on Ilion's website, he links to a news story about a Canadian jeweler who cheerfully and professionally did everything his lesbian customers wanted. Yet they still threatened action against his business solely because he did not approve of what his customers were doing. So Doug is right. This has nothing to do with cakes, etc. Read the quote at the top of this posting again. It's all about thought crime.

In response, concerning lesbians' subsequent progressive-mob attack on the the Christian jeweler, I wrote:

I suspect that the sexual pervert fascists did this on purpose: that they intentionally ordered custom-made "engagement" rings from this jeweler, intending all along to raise the progressive mob against him to demand a refund ... after he had gone to the expense of buying the materials and doing the labor to make the rings.

And, as sure as night follows day, some lying leftist "social justice warrior" needed to pipe up

What's next - jet fuel can't melt steel beams? There was a second gunman on the grassy knoll?

Which is rather amusing, when you think about it: the fool's examples of "crazy conspiracy theories" to which he wants to liken what I said are the sort that leftists love to love, and to spread.

Now, anyone who has *read* just a couple of the public news items about the particular case -- to say nothing of all the other cases in which sexual perversion fascists and other "social justice warrior" fascists conspire to ruin the livelihoods, and lives, of persons who will not agree to pretend that two dudes butt-fucking equals a marriage -- understands that there is no "crazy conspiracy theory" involved in what I wrote. And, moreover, those who have read a couple of public news items about the Canadian sexual perverts attempting to ruin the livelihhod of the Christian jeweler understand that my use of "I suspect" was just me using understatement, as I do from time to time.


So, if Gentle Reader has grasped the essential dishonesty of the fool, 'John Doe', trying to liken what I'd written to some "crazy conspiracy theory", let us move on to B.Prokop attempting a similar move (in his case, in two parts).

Victor Reppert has another recent post, called An ethicist's nightmare

There are ethical problems with some research. Let's take, for example, selective breeding of human beings. The issues surrounding racism are made a lot easier by the fact that there is really no such thing as a superior race. But, if we started breeding superior human beings, then there would be a superior race in reality. Then what would our duties of the superior race be to the inferior race? That would be an ethicist's nightmare.

But a certain famous scientist keeps playing around with the idea.

I made two comments to Mr Reppert's OP --

comment #1 " The issues surrounding racism are made a lot easier by the fact that there is really no such thing as a superior race."

Oh, silly! There are any number of "superior race(s)" ... it all depends upon the metrics one is using to define or delineate "superior".

Admittedly, my comment could have been clearer had I quoted Reppert's next sentence. In the sentence I quoted, he says that there is presently no such thing as a "superior race". In the next (and unquoted) sentence, he says that in the future, there could be such a thing as a "superior race", were eugenicists (and 'Science!' worshipers in general) to have their way. My response is to point out that, no, there is no difference at all between now and this imagined future with respect to the existence of a "superior race".

comment #2 "Then what would our duties of the superior race be to the inferior race? That would be an ethicist's nightmare."

It would [NOT] be "an ethicist's nightmare" nightmare because "ethics" is about coming up with rationales to "explain" how it is that immoral behavior is really moral, after all.

Races don't have moral duties to races. Individuals have moral duties to individuals, and those don't change just because one's race is superior according to this metric, rather than that.

Ah-ha! B.Prokop -- who is still a leftist at heart, and who is really fighting to hold onto his leftism -- apparently imagined he had found -- or could manufacture -- a "Gotcha" moment

What are your metrics, Ilion, that would indicate the existence of a "superior" race in the Real World today? I don't know of any.

Superior cultures, yes. But races? Can't see it.

Now, even if Gentle Reader doesn't yet fully understand that I do not play that game, B.Prokop surely knows it by now.

I replied --

Do you (singular and plural) practice at this? Is there some special class one takes to learn to un-read what another has written so clearly?

Do you remember the last time you beat your wife, B.Prokop?

See? In two different ways, I had told B.Prokop that he was barking up the wrong tree (and that I wasn't going to play that game).

And, so, of course, being a not yet recovered leftist, B.Prokop had to play another popular leftist game: "I'm a Special Snowflake and It's All Always All About Me!" --

It would have been sometime before she died, literally in my arms, with our daughters weeping at the foot of her bed, from pancreatic cancer some 6 years ago. Care to apologize for that remark, Ilion?

That ain't never gonns happen, and he knows it; for I apologize only if I have done something wrong. And someone else's decision to invent an insult where there is none is not *me* doing something wrong.

Shoot! Someone else even tried, round-about, to explain it to him --

Your wife may have been a poor topic for Ilíon's question, but I think the point he was trying to make was that your question about what metrics he would use to determine which race is superior is leading, and it misses his point. I wouldn't take it personally.

And, of course, everyone knows that the question, "When did you quit beating your wife?", or variations on it, has nothing to do with making "your wife" the "topic for [the] question".

But, of course, B.Prokop is still a fool (and is resisting freeing himself of his long-cherished foolishness), and so he *cannot* admit his error, or even just let it drop quickly down the memory-hole --

I did [take it personally], and he needs to apologize - abjectly, and now.

Ain't never gonna happen ... and everyone knows it ain't.

Marriage legal and moral

Victor Reppert has (yet another) post concerning the anti-debate in the US concerning same-sex mirage. Among other things, it's exploring a typically libertarian version of surrender to the leftists on the issue. In this post, I intend to expand upon the response I posted to his blog.

Mr Reppert's (new) post is called Marriage legal and moral --

Some people would argue for a distinction between the legal acceptability of same-sex marriage and its moral acceptability. Consider the following case: a man leaves his wife and three kids, and runs off with a Playboy bunny half his age. He divorces his wife, and goes down to the courthouse to get a license to marry his new girlfriend. The courthouse won't ask any questions about whether he was moral or not in starting this relationship which began as an adulterous affair. They just check to see if his divorce is final, and if it is, they issue the marriage license. But if a photographer who knew about how the relationship starter, and who believes in the Seventh Commandment (Thou shalt not commit adultery) was asked to photograph the wedding, would such a photographer be reasonable in saying "I recognize that you are getting married legally, but I can't be part of the celebration of your new union, given what I know about how you got together. Sorry, please find another photographer."

(Interestingly enough, the above case seems to be one of the stronger reasons in support of same-sex marriage, since it points out that in heterosexual cases like this one, the government doesn't hand out licenses based on what they perceive to be moral or not, either on religious grounds or on any other grounds).

If that is reasonable, then could someone who object morally to a same-sex marriage do the same thing, since they are being asked, really, to be part of the celebration of something they don't feel right about celebrating?

My posted response was:

The (ahem) argument given above begs the very point at question. Moreover, it commits one to a slippery-slope that can only end in the destruction of the institution of marriage.

But then, that it the whole point of "gay" mirage.

Concerning Mr Reppert's scenario of adultery and divorce and re-marriage -- now, aside from the inconvenient fact that it is more frequently the woman who torpedoes a given marriage, the other fact is that the ubiquity of divorce in present-day America (and Western civilization as a whole) is a direct result of our collective decision to refuse to fight against the former leftist assualt on the very meaning of marriage, via "no-fault" divorce ... which is to say, divorce-on-demand.

Indeed, in the "bad old days", there were men who behaved shamefully toward their wives as in Mr Reppert's scenario -- Charles Dickens comes to mind. But, it was not "socially acceptable", and *everyone* thereafter looked askance at such a man, even if they didn't say anything to his face.

As an example: my paternal grandmother had been married four times (the other, three: I know a bit about the costs of divorce). Her first husband died, leaving her a young widow with two children. She remarried and they had a son. Then she discovered that her "husband" was married to another woman, so she divorced him, to make it "legal". He died soon after, and she married my grandfather; they had two sons (the elder died in infancy) ... and then she divorced him (my father told me that his older sister used to stir up trouble between his parents; but it's also a fact that my grandmother was not an easy woman to live with, and so she was probably very stirable). When my father was nine, his parents were going to remarry (I think my aunt was herself married by then); they had the marriage license already. But then my grandfather died of pneumonia (he was 59/60, she was 44/45). Sometime after that, my grandmother married for the fourth time ... and thus we called her "Grandma Brown", and similarly did not call my mother's mother "Grandma Brown" due to her own final marriage.

Now, I want to draw Gentle Reader's attention to something that will seem very odd to persons having been reared in the present-day anti-Christian "no-fault" divorce culture: my grandmother did not re-marry until her previous husband -- even though she had divorced him, or even when the "marriage" hadn't been a real marriage in the first place -- had died.

Now, don't take this as that my grandmother was some sort of holy Christian. Rather, our culture was so informed by Christianity that even non-Christians lived the public/social aspects of their lives in accordance with Christianity. And, according to Christianity, a marriage is the permanent union of a man and a woman, ending only by the death of one of the spouses, for it is a "type" of the promise of our union with God --and "long-term relationship" is emphatically not a Christian concept.

Even as recently as 1936, even the King of Great Britain wasn't free simply to marry a woman with two living husbands; this is how "socially unacceptable" Christianity had made divorce, in contrast to the pagan Romans after they had become so morally decadent that they could not maintain their own republic.

This is what we, as a civilization, have already given up -- have already willingly destroyed -- in choosing to have our ears tickled by the lies of people who have always intended the utter destruction of the institution of marriage ... and the marginalization of the very foundation of our civilization, which is Christianity.

(Interestingly enough, the above case seems to be one of the stronger reasons in support of same-sex marriage, since it points out that in heterosexual cases like this one, the government doesn't hand out licenses based on what they perceive to be moral or not, either on religious grounds or on any other grounds).

As seen above, the argument implied here is a bit disingenuous. Moreover, until quite recently, "the government" didn't license one to marry; rather, "the government" legally acknowledged what Christianity said had or had not happened (this is why my grandmother's second "long-term relationship" was not a marriage, despite the license from "the government").

Let us look at something I have written several times, in various places. These are the requirements for entering a valid marriage, one that is both moral and legal, and upon which the laws in all the polities of Christendom had been based until quite recently --
0) A marriage is the publicly recognized exclusive life union between two human beings for the primary purpose of:
a) forming a new family-unit;
b) thereby domesticating their sexual activity for the benefit of society -- and of the individuals themselves -- as untamed sexual activity is destructive, both to the individual and ultimately to society as a whole;
c) and creating a stable environment for the rearing the the new human beings who are the natural result of the sex act;
d) and thus establishing just who is responsible for the up-bringing of those new human beings;
1) Therefore: a marriage may be contracted between two, and only two, human beings:
1a) one male;
1b) one female;
2) both parties must be free to contract a marriage; that is, neither party is already married;
2a) both by what a marriage is, as in 0) above, and by this requirement, a marriage involves the promise of sexual exclusivity;
3) the two parties may not be within a prohibited degree of biological or familial relationship to one another;
4) the two parties must mutually consent to the marriage;
5) from which it follows that the two parties must be legal adults, legally competent to consent to a marriage;
5a) or, if not yet legal adults, must be of some minimum age and must have the approval of their legal guardian.

DO NOTE: in no wise do these requirements prevent persons afflicted with homosexual desire from marrying -- the point being that the leftists' primary charge against marriage in the present phase of their centuries-long war to destroy marriage is a deliberate lie. But then, The Lie has always been the preferred tool of leftists in their continual war against what is.


Now, consider the above tendentious argument for homosexual "marriage" in conjunction with the above given requirements for, and definition of, marriage.

Clearly, in order to pretend that a homosexual "marriage" is a real marriage, we must pretend that sub-items 1a) and 1b) are not the first requirement of a marriage. Moreover, as homosexual "unions" do not, and cannot, result in the issue of children, then most of the sub-points of 0) must be removed from the social meaning of marriage. Similarly, as homosexual "long-term relationships" are emphatically *not* about sexual exclusivity, then item 2a), and indeed the very definition of marriage as an "exclusive life union", must be denigrated, even moreso than has already been done via "no-fault" divorce.


But, if sub-items 1a) and 1b) can be removed as requirements for a real marriage, why cannot requirement 1) be removed entirely? Who says that a marriage may be contracted between two, and only two, persons? Hell, who says that a marriage may be contracted only between persons?

And -- as everyone knows ... despite that some of us have (leftist) political reasons to lie about the matter -- we are already seeing people "marrying" animals and inanimate objects and multiple "partners".


Why cannot requirement 2) be removed? Who says that a marriage may not be contracted by a person already married to someone else?

And -- as everyone knows ... despite that some of us have (leftist) political reasons to lie about the matter -- we are already seeing people advocating that polygamous "marriages" and "open" "marriages" are just as real as real marriages.


Why cannot requirement 3) be removed? Who says that a marriage may be contracted only by two persons who are not within a prohibited degree of biological or familial relationship to one another?

And -- as everyone knows ... despite that some of us have (leftist) political reasons to lie about the matter -- we are already seeing people advocating that incestuous "long-term relationships" may be just as validly marriages as real marriages.

Gentle Reader may recall that I have "predicted" that once the meaning of marriage has been deliberately destroyed in the name of a false "equality", we will be seeing people "marrying" their heirs, so as to evade estate taxes.

Already we see a case of an adoptive 'father' "marrying" his adoptive 'son' -- and the whole point of the adoption was "estate planning".

What? You say that these two men were not *really* father and son, despite that they had obtained a state-issued document stating that they were, in fact, father and son? But, then you turn around and say that, now, they *really are* man and husband, simply because they have obtained a state-issued document (as forced upon the polity by unelected and unaccountable judges) stating that they are, in fact, married to one another?

So, which is it?

If the issuance of the document of legal adoption really did make these two men father and son, and if the issuance of a marriage license really did make them married, then we *already* have the legal precedent of a publicly acknowledged, incestuous "marriage".

If the issuance of the document of legal adoption did *not* really make these two men father and son, then by what token does the subsequent issuance of a marriage license really make them married?


Why cannot requirement 4) be removed? Who says that a marriage may be contracted only by two persons who willingly consent to the marriage? Who says that the "marriages" that ISIS commits upon captured women are not real marriages?

And -- as everyone knows ... despite that some of us have (leftist) political reasons to lie about the matter -- we will soon be seeing people advocating this very thing here in America.


Why cannot requirement 5) be removed? Who says that a marriage may be contracted only by two persons who are adults, possessing the legal capacity to consent to the marriage? Who says that the "marriages" that ISIS commits upon captured girls are not real marriages?

And -- as everyone knows ... despite that some of us have (leftist) political reasons to lie about the matter -- we will soon be seeing people advocating this very thing here in America: both by Moslems and by NAMBLA types.



Recall, the argument from Mr Reppert's original post, and my posted response to it --

(Interestingly enough, the above case seems to be one of the stronger reasons in support of same-sex marriage, since it points out that in heterosexual cases like this one, the government doesn't hand out licenses based on what they perceive to be moral or not, either on religious grounds or on any other grounds).

The (ahem) argument given above begs the very point at question. Moreover, it commits one to a slippery-slope that can only end in the destruction of the institution of marriage.

But then, that it the whole point of "gay" mirage.

And recall, after listing the requirements for contracting a real marriage, I had pointed out that in no wise do these requirements prevent persons afflicted with homosexual desire from marrying.

Just just as, per the argument Mr Reppert presented in his post, The State does not refuse to issue a marriage license (subsequent to his divorce) to the adulterous couple, neither does The State -- nor ever Christianity, for that matter -- enquire whether, for instance, the male party to a marriage would rather "dip his wick" in "strange flesh".

Real marriage has never been prohibited to homosexual persons, and the rule has always been the same for everyone: one man, one woman. What? Are we going to pretend that heterosexual men(/women) have been permitted to "marry" other men(/women), and that only homosexual men(/women) have not?

So, redefining the requirements for, and meaning of, marriage is *not* a matter of "equality before the law". For there is not, nor never has been, any legal, or moral, prohibition of homosexual persons marrying.

The truth is, "gay" activists do not *want* to marry: they are leftists and they want advance the leftist project to destroy marriage. The current strategy of the leftists is to define marriage out of existence.

So, the issue is not "equality before the law" with respect to marriage. Rather, the point at dispute is "what is marriage? what is its purpose? what are its requirements?"

Now, we already have answers to those questions, and have had for thousands of years: those answers are the foundation of our very civilization. The leftists are disputing those answers. Therefore, as they are disputing long-settled, and indeed fundamental, matters, it is incumbent upon them to show that the answers we have are wrong.

The sort of argument Mr Reppert presented in his post does not even attempt to show that the answers upon which our very civilization is built are wrong; such arguments simply assume the long-settled answers are wrong: question-begging.

==============
If we, as a society, insist upon pretending that the leftists, in general, and the "gay" activists, in particular, are not intentionally and deliberately lying about the matter, then we will be cooperating in the lie. And we will find, and in not too many years, that what we have agreed to is the total destruction of marriage; which was the leftists' goal, all along.

===========

If that is reasonable, then could someone who object morally to a same-sex marriage do the same thing, since they are being asked, really, to be part of the celebration of something they don't feel right about celebrating?

This is dangerous ground for "liberals" (i.e. "soft" leftists) and most "conservatives" (i.e. "soft" "liberals"): for to reason in this manner may eventually lead one to a certain unwelcome, yet correct, conclusion: namely that our "anti-discrimination" laws are both immoral and unConstitutional. That is, such "laws" are illegal, with respect both the moral law and to the very basis and legitimacy of the American government.

New Geico Commercial: 'When you're an [X], you [y]. It's what you do.'

Victor Reppert: Organized Disrespect

Victor Reppert: "John [Loftus], do you actually read your combox? When I got into the David Wood discussion, I was called intellectually dishonest, a Liar-4-Jezus, and then we get this gem ...

And you complain about Ilion???? I didn't think it was possible to make Ilion look like Miss Manners, but I see it done every day on Debunking Christianity"

Ilíon: Surely, you've seen the new Geico commercial: "When you're an 'atheist', you lie. It's what you do."

====
By the way, "the David Wood discussion" to which Mr Reppert refers is the (ahem) discussion on Loftus' blog about this video -- it's a moving video, as they say.

As Michael ('Shadow to Light') says on the page to which I linked

When someone becomes a Christian, what sets the stage is the following intuitive insight: There is something very wrong with me; I need to change.

When someone becomes an atheist, what sets the stage if the following intuitive insight: There is something very wrong with them; they need to be stopped.

Why mental states are not physical states

Victor Reppert has a recent small post, Why mental states are not physical states. As is his habit, or modesty, he doesn't take the idea he's (tentatively) exploring to its logical conclusion, which is that we -- embodied rational beings -- are the proof that God -- the unembodied Rational Being of all beings -- is.

In a comment to his OP, I do take the idea to that conclusion (of course), and I might as well share it with you (or course). But the *main* point of this post is to demolish the *denial* of what Reppert wrote --
Victor Reppert:

If mental states are physical states, then the truth about what someone believes should follow necessarily from the state of the brain/physical world. But it doesn't. If we line up all the physical facts, we have every atom traced, the argument from The brain is in state X therefore he must believe, say, that God exists, cannot follow necessarily. The state of the physical always leaves the state of the mental indeterminate. But what my thought is about is determinate, not indeterminate. Therefore my belief is not a physical state.

Me, taking the idea to its logical conclusion:

... and thereby do we know that naturalism and materialism and indeed atheism (*) is false.

(*) For, it isn't the physicalism that shows naturalism and materialism to be false, it is the determinism.

An even better word to have used than 'determinism', even if I have to coin it myself, is 'machinality'.

Contrary to the assertions of some of the God-deniers who admit the inescapable problem with 'materialism', yet vainly imagine that there is some 'atheism' out there free of the flaw (*), the flaw -- the logical entailment of the denial that we ourselves even *can* exist -- the flaw goes deeper than mere 'materialism'; the flaw is in God-denial itself.

What is at the heart of 'atheism'? What does it *mean* to say that "God is not"? The heart of 'atheism', the meaning of God-denial, is the assertion that there is no Person -- no Agent -- who is "the ground of all being". That is, whatever it is that may properly be said to be "the gound of all being", that thing is not a person, is not an agent, and, consequently, does not, and cannot, posses the properties that distinguish persons from non-persons and agents from non-agents.

One of the properties that distinguish persons from non-persons and agents from non-agents is freedom; in fact, freedom is the main characteristic of agency. As agent is active, rather than passive; and agent is not merely acted upon, but rather, acts. An agent is free to initiate novel causal-webs, rather than merely being acted upon by pre-existing causal-webs.

When God-deniers deny the reality of God -- deny that God, a Person, an Agent, is *the* fundamental reality -- then they are denying that it is even possible for there to be *any* agents and *any* persons. When God-deniers deny the reality of God, they are asserting that *everything* that is is a machine, a passively deterministic entity, whether or not it has any material component.

To deny the reality of the Divine Person(s) is also -- necessarily -- to deny the reality of human persons; this is why I keep saying that "You are the proof that God is!"

Some God-deniers try to get around that cardinal difficulty of atheism (and disproof of it) by ad hoc positing that perhaps 'Mind' or 'Consciousness' or some similar concept is "fundamental to reality", and as 'atheism', per se doesn't (appear to) deny the possibility, that therefore 'atheism' isn't seen to be necessarily false, and is off the hook for internal incoherence.

But, there is no such thing as 'Mind', nor any of the related concepts to which they ad hoc appeal, unless there is an actually existing mind. When the God-deniers try this particular stunt, what they are really doing is trying to after-the-fact smuggle God into the foundation of their world-view, via the cellar door, while continuing to shout out the front door and all the windows that there is no God.


(*) Not that they *ever* do more than vaguely wave their hands and declare the problem solved to their satisfaction.

John Moore, denying Repper's reasoning (as, being a God-denier, he *must*):

Yes it does. If we line up all the physical facts, with every atom traced, then we can see precisely what the brain believes. We can see how particular sensory inputs will activate particular neural pathways and eventually produce motor output such as a speech act saying "I believe X."

I wish I could understand why Victor says it doesn't. Please provide more explanation.

Looking at a computer circuit, we can see that particular inputs inevitably lead to particular outputs. That's how the electrical circuit works. The brain is also a kind of electrical circuit. It is hugely complex and made of different stuff, but the brain still looks entirely physical. If we knew what every atom was doing, we could predict exactly what the brain would do.

Let us try to pretend that Mr Moore really believes what he is asserting (he doesn't). Moveover, let us try to pretend that what he is asserting really is the truth about reality, and about human beings (it isn't). What would it *mean* were these things true? What would be the logical entailment of these assertions were they true?

Victor Reppert: "If mental states are physical states, then the truth about what someone believes should follow necessarily from the state of the brain/physical world. But it doesn't." (I suspect that Mr Reppet means something very different from what he actually wrote; but I also believe that most readers will *get* what he means.)

John Moore: "If we line up all the physical facts, with every atom traced, then we can see precisely what the brain believes. We can see how particular sensory inputs will activate particular neural pathways and eventually produce motor output such as a speech act saying "I believe X.""

By his *own* assertion, Mr Moore doesn't actually believe what he is asserting -- for, in the world-view he pretends to believe, there is no such thing, nor can be, as 'belief'. God-deniers *use* words such as 'believe' and 'choose', while emptying them of any meaning at all.

Rather, both he and Mr Reppert are simply making noises (or typing letters) because their particular brain-states, at this particular moment in the unfolding history of the material world, compel their mouths (or fingers) to produce those noises (or typed letters). In a moment, Mr Moore's brain-state may well change -- perhaps he will hear the sound represented by the letters "tomato", and that sound will set in motion a series of brain-state changes -- such that his brain-state will then compel him to "contradict" what he has just said.

Who can say? Certainly not Mr Moore, for he -- by his own admission -- knows nothing, nor believes anything, nor can do either.

If Mr Moore's assertion -- for he offers no *argument* -- (and the world-view behind it) were indeed true, then his act of asserting it is utterly meaningless, as is Mr Reppert's argument to the contrary.

Mr Moore is *explicitly* asserting that minds are produced by, are effects of, brains. He is *explicitly* asserting the he, and Reppert, and you and me, are machines. In this case, physical/material machines. He is *explicitly* asserting that we are passively determined at every instant by the prior history of the material/physical world. He is *explicitly* asserting that we do not, and cannot, choose to do this or that (recall: even if he uses that word, he first empties it of any meaning), but rather that whatever "speech act", say, we may perform is merely the mechanical-and-inevitable result of prior material states.

Usually, God-deniers try to not be this explicit about what God-denial actually entails.


Some semi-prominent 'atheists' like to make the devistating "argument" that Christians "belong at the kids' table"; for, after all, we persist in believing "irrational" things.

But, the truth is that until a man acknowledges that God is (which is a different matter from whether Jesus the Christ is God), he not only has no place a "the adults' table, but also not at "the kids' table". Rather, the God-denier belongs on the floor, with the other non-rational animals.


By the way, this is a little game of which God-deniers (and leftists and DarwinDefenders) are inordinately fond-- "I wish I could understand why Victor says it doesn't. Please provide more explanation." -- I call it "Deny and Demand": deny the explanation you have been given without ever engaging it, and demand another.


============ Edit 2015/02/08 ===============

Shackleman: "Granted, I think "emergence" lacks much merit, but I still think you've left room for them to retreat to it."

It only looks that way because people (you, in this case) are used to -- have been conditioned to -- allow them to do that. Somehow, materialists took over the intellectual life of the West two or three *centuries* ago. By this point in time, we're all so used to the implicit materialism into which we're born, that we rarely *examine* the underlying assumptions and entailments ... nor question the moves made by the intentional materialists.

Shackleman: "Have you not left room for the atheist to claim that agency can "emerge" from a universe which exists initially without agency? I think that's what they'd do, and point to "evolution" as the driving force to get them there."

'Emergence' is a Great Word of Magick amongst materialists and atheists. But, in reality, it's even more empty than the word 'instinct' used by butterfly col ... I mean, evolutionist biologists.

Allow me to first illustrate the issue by means of an aphorism (that I just made up) which is also an analogy and a metaphor -- "A tiger may emerge from a jungle ... proveded there is already a tiger in the jungle." (Do note my use of 'may': the tiger has some choice in the matter).

The atheist, whether or not he cops to being a materialist, who tries to escape this logical entailment of the denial of the reality and personhood of God (to wit: denial of the reality of the human person) by appealing to 'emergence' is akin to the man who states that there is no tiger in the jungle, but that, nonetheless, purely by chance occurrance, one might emerge from it at any time.


Now, consider this --

Let us posit the existence of some initial state of affairs, some world -- which may or may not be material (this point is important) (*) -- in which all events/occurrances are the mechanical effects of logically prior (**) events/occurrances. This is simple cause-and-effect: the logically prior event(s)/occurrance(s) is(are) the cause(s) of the logically subsequent event(s)/occurrance(s), the effect(s), necessarily.

Thus -- for this is just another way of stating the above paragraph -- given the condition of this 'world' at state 'S0', then it is mechanically inevitable that its condition at state 'S1' will be as it will be. That is, state 'S1' is fully determined by state 'S0'. This necessarily applies no matter which state one chooses to account as being state 'S0'.

Look again at what Mr Moore said -- what I have said above is *exactly* what he said, just more general-in-application, less linked to materialism, and more precisely stated.

But, notice: this world I have described is merely an abstract description or model of what the 'atheist' claims is true of *this* world, and of us. This world I have described is the theoretical instance of what the 'atheist' says is the truth about the particular instance in which we find ourselves -- thus, if the theoretical instance cannot fully account for the particular instance, then the theory is at best incomplete. The theory may also be flat-out wrong.

So, which is it? Is the 'atheist' theory flat-out wrong, or is it just incomplete? (Hint: it's flat-out wrong)

Look again at the theory -- state 'S1' is fully determined by state 'S0'. Thus, state 'S2' is fully determined by state 'S1', and state 'S3' is fully determined by state 'S2', and so on, world without end.

When the 'atheist' tries to appeal to 'emergence' to "explain" the existence in this theoretical world of entities which are *not* fully determined by the world's prior states, then he is rendering his theory-of-the-world incoherent --which is to say, Self-contradictory, which is to say, necessarily false (and not merely incomplete). For, while a set of self-consistent statements may be nonetheless false, no set of self-contradictory statements can ever possibly be true.

When the 'atheist' tries to appeal to 'emergence' to "explain" the existence in this theoretical world of entities which are *not* fully determined by the world's prior states, then he is saying that somewhere between state 'Sn' and state 'Sn+1' a *POOF* occurs, and out of absolutely nowhere, with absolutley no cause, that which was never in the world, not even as a potential, just appears.

And, of course, if the inattentive listener lets the 'atheist' get away with that bit of Magick, it turns out that the "agency" he has poofed into the world isn't *actually* agency: it's just the word 'agency' applied to mechanical necessity. As I said before, 'atheists' do (and must) empty such words of content and meaning, for the meaning contradicts their world-view.


(*) This 'world' may, or may not, be wholly material, or at least have a material component along with an immaterial component, ot may be wholly immaterial -- it doesn't matter. All that matters is that this world is logically consistent, that no part of it contradict the whole; for, if it is not logically consistet, if it is not coherent, then it cannot be a world.

(**) And perhaps temporally prior, but that's not important; just as this 'world' may be wholly immaterial, so, too, may it be a-temporal. All that is absolutely required of it is that it be logically consistent.

Not fit for the Kids' Table

Victor Reppert: "It must be noted that there is no way, on the model I have presented, to show that everyone who denies the Resurrection is irrational, or engaged in bad faith."

How about showing that *almost* everyone -- and certainly the most vocal -- who denies the Resurrection is engaged in bad-faith hypocrisy?

[The point here is that most "skeptics" have no problem at all with Carl Sagan's scientistic assertions about things just happening for no reason nor cause nor meaning -- events that have never been observed to have happened and that would be considered by nearly everyone except "skeptics" to be miracles, or probable miracles, were they ever to be observed to actually have happened.]


There is another point it seems to me that you constantly overlook -- which is that even were Christianity false, that is, even if Christ did not rise from the dead [and his rising did not mean what Christianity says it means], that doesn't touch on the even more basic question: "Is God?"

The question of Christ's Resurrection is pointless unless there is a Creator-God who intentionally restored life and soul to that dead body as a promise to do likewise with those who love him. After all, one could acknowledge that Jesus really was dead and really did come back to life ... and then "explain" it as one of those (asserted by scientism) pointless [meaningless], astronomically improbable events that just happen from time to time all by themselves for no reason and with no cause [and no attendant meaning], as discussed in the above link.

[To reiterate a point I've made many times -- it's not the (alleged) fact that Jesus really was dead and really did come back to life that gets the so-called skeptics' panties in a bunch, it's the (alleged) meaning of his coming back to life that they hate; for that meaning points to the reality of the Creator, and of moral duties ... and of moral judgment. If Jesus' coming back to life were just a strange historical footnote, to which no one ascribed any particular significance, then the "skeptics" wouldn't be at all skeptical that it really did occur.]

Now, as it happens, we human beings have many lines of argument and evidence that show:
1) belief in the Creator is rational;
2) disbelief in the Creator is irrational.

ERGO, anyone who denies the reality of the Creator is [willfully] irrational.

WHY do you continue to waste your time -- and encourage others to waste their time (to say nothing of sanity) -- in the logically impossible quest of rationally convincing irrational people to acknowledge that you are rational? Arguing Christ with Jews, or even with Hindus, may be a rational undertaking; arguing anything "religious" with God-deniers is the epitome of irrational behavior.

UNTIL a person acknowledges that there is a Creator, he has nothing to say: he "has no place at the table", as the saying goes. It's not that he "belongs at the Kids' Table" [as some God-haters like to say of Christians ... and even of persons who are not necessarily Christians], for even children are rational beings ... it's that, in willfully choosing irrationality, the God-denier belongs on the floor, fighting with the dogs for whatever scraps fall from the Kids' Table.

Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks IV

Right now, I have time only for a quick post, just a reference, really.

I present for Gentle Reader's amusement, a stupid 'atheist' trick recently posted on Victor Reppert's blog. Can you see the "stupid trick" -- by which I mean intellectual dishonesty-- without me explaining it?

Steven Carr:
Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

Edit 2013/09/30:
First, in case one has not read it, the background of this particular stupid trick is that Mr Reppert had made a little joke post, the humor of which follows from one's familiarity with:
1) the quip that God created man as Adam and Eve, not as Adam and Steve (which is to say, that as God created man intrinsically sexed -- male and female -- then homosexual couplings are intrinsically unnatural and disordered);
2) the like-clockwork regularity of announcements by "scholars" that they've "discovered" "new" documents that are going to "rock the foundations" of Christianity.

Victor Reppert: Are there pages missing?

Actually, some recent manuscripts have been discovered which show that God first created Adam and Steve. But that didn't work out so well with regard to populating the earth, so God then created Eve to correct the situation.

So, that's the context in which the infamously intellectually dishonest

Steven Carr said:
Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

And the "stupid 'atheist' trick" that Mr Carr is attempting to deploy is the very common atheistic dishonesty of demanding that the Judeo-Christian (conclusion and) claim that "God is omnipotent" means and must mean that we are saying that God is illogical and irrational (and even anti-rational).

This specific instance of the particular "stupid 'atheist' trick" under discussion is of the same nature as saying "If your God were *really* omnipotent, he could make a married bachelor!" But, of course, "a married bachelor" -- a man who is both married and unmarried -- is a contradiction in terms. It is as logically impossible for there to be a "married bachelor" as for there to be a "square circle".

The terms 'male' and 'female' -- and the physical-and-biological realities to which they refer -- have meaning only in mutual relation. A 'male' is a member of a sexually reproducing species who is able, in principle, to fertilize the ova of 'females' of his species. A 'female' is a member of a sexually reproducing species who is able, in principle, to have her fertilized by 'males' of her species.

At the sane time, 'males' and 'females' are not 'hermaphrodites'. Possibly, some species could have some members who are male, some who are female, and some who are hermaphroditic. Whether or not that is actually possible, given rules of biology, that is not how the human species is created.

So, when the intellectually dishonest fool, Steven Carr, said

Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

he was saing one of these two things:
1) If God were really omnipotent, he could have created 'Adam' able to impregnate 'Steve' -- in other words, the dishonest fool is saying that if God were really omnipotent, he could have crated a 'male' who is really a 'female'. But, as we have seen above, given the meanings of the terms 'male' and 'female', this is a contradiction if terms. A 'male' who is really a 'female' is like a 'circle' which is really a 'square' or a 'bachelor' who is really a 'husband'.
2) If God were really omnipotent, he would have created 'Adam' able to impregnate 'Steve', and 'Steve' able to impregnate 'Adam' -- in other words, the dishonest fool is saying that if God were really omnipotent, he would have created man as hermaphroditic, rather than as male and female. But, of course, this is both a total non sequitur ... and a self-contradiction -- for, if the (ahem) logic were sound, then *had* God created us hermaphroditic, then it would still be the case that his having made *that* choice would "prove" him to be non-omnipotent.

When the intellectually dishonest fool, Steven Carr, said

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

he was simply:
1) expressing his willfully-chosen ignorance of the meaning of 'omnipotence';
2) expressing his willfully-chosen ignorance of the meaning of 'miracle';
3) expressing his touching faith in Magick ... which he calls 'Science!';
4) mocking the Christian doctrine of the Virgin Birth ... which he ignorantly imagines is logically impossible.



*Our* God's name is "IS" ... one of the names of Mr Carr's god is "Cannot Be". Mr Carr's foolish post can be seen as an act of worship of his god, "Dis-".

In effect, Mr Carr is saying, "If your God were *real*, he would be the same as my anti-rational and anti-existent god."

In which we learn that I am a 'sexist' of that ilk

The shriekers at Victor Reppert's blog just can't seem to get enough of agreeing amongst themselves that I am wicked vile evil! Consider this -- B.Prokop:

Dan,
I slammed Ilion, et.al., for their sexism nearly two years ago on this very website in one of my finest rants ever - a real classic:

"Papalinton and his fellow-travelers, who are forever going on about religion's so-called 'Bronze Age thinking' were aiming at the wrong target. They should have set their sights on the Stone Age thinking of the likes of Ilion, 'Gimli', et.al.

What nonsense! Worse, what slop, what filth! You people should crawl back under your rocks.

I'm sorry, but I can't muster up even a modicum of politeness here. These were the most insulting, degrading comments ever to grace this website - far worse than anything Loftus ever dreamed of spewing out. I felt sullied even reading them. I will not even try to engage with such idiots! What's the point when they have amply demonstrated that there's nothing to engage with?"

Damn, but it makes me feel good just to re-read that tirade! (and that's just a sampling of the full posting [as far as I can see, it's the entirely of the post]) I don't often get to indulge in a justified bout of good ol' fashioned righteous anger.

The thing about "good ol' fashioned righteous anger" is that far too many persons conflate self-righteousness (and self-righteous hypocricy) with it, as we shall see.

B.Prokop:

... and you know what's funny? I can't even find the original comments that led to that gem of an outburst (and I've looked). I believe it was early in 2011. I just remember that Ilion and company had crossed the line in their disparagement of women, and I couldn't sit still for it.

So, a mildly amusing point -- this shrieker, this advocate of mass-murder (for to advocate leftism *just is* to advocate mass-murder), this wicked fool who likens me to Satan because I forcefully oppose the leftism he espouses, claimig it to be Christianity, keeps a record on his PC of his "classic" slams of me ... and isn't bright enough to also record the URL with the slam.

Fortunately, the ever-helpful 'Crude' -- who had decided a couple of years ago to hop onto the band-waggon (what I mean is, long before the deal about Rush Limbaugh supposedly calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut' or 'whore', I recognized where 'Crude' was going, even if he didn't) -- supplied the link to that righteous rant

I must be really terrible, right! I must really be a wicked, evil, vile [caution: Magickal Word ahead] sexist, who crawled out from under a rock, right?

Well, let's see how wicked, evil, vile I really am, shall we? I had made two posts, the second and third in the thread; the leftist's "righteous rant" is the fourth.

My post #1, addressing Victor Reppert's OP

"I have never held a job a woman couldn't do as well or better than me."

Really? None at all? Not even your current job?

"When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" With industrialization, this changes."

Ah! In other words, if men invent and build machines so that the sort of physical strength natural to men (in contrast to the sort natural to women) is no longer so necessary to get the public work of society done, then women can be egalitarianly "equal" to men.

"With industrialization, this changes."

Are you sure you don't mean "post-industrialization"? You know, offices and bureaucracies and such? Rosie-the-Riveter (my grandmother was one) was an anomaly.

The truth is, women are "equal" to men in the egalitarian sense you're talking about precisely because men are constantly holding their hands and constantly trying to protect them from the consequences of their own ill-advised decisions … while everyone pretends that women, in general, are strong and independent.

My female relatives, going back for generations, tend to be strong and independent … and in the present age, they no more “fit in” than I do.

"When your survival is under constant threat, the question of "How can we survive" comes before the question of "What is fair?" … So, I'm not inclined to be too hard on past cultures for their sexism. But I am hard on people who want to carry sexism into the present day."

Dude! Our society is dying of all these “strong and independent (pseudo) women” and “sensitive, supportive (*) (pseudo) men” … whom, together, never seen to get around to either themselves becoming adults, nor of rearing up a new generation of adults to take their places.

(*) concerning “supportive” (so-called) men - why is it necessary that men be “supportive” if women are so “strong and independent”? Does not the role designated to modern-day men give the lie to the whole egalitarian myth?

The thought behind the first question (Really? None at all? Not even your current job?) was something like this: then why doesn't that institutionally sexist university fire your gold-bricking ass and hire -- for less money -- a woman who can do the same, or better, job?

My post #2

Gimli: "Intellectually, both sexes are equally capable."

Even that isn't accurate. Women cluster toward the middle of the intellectual curve ... a lower proportion of women are either idiots or geniuses ... or, in other words, there are proportionately more male than female geniuses, and more male than femal[e] idiots.

Thus is my wicked vile evil thoughtcrime laid bare for all to see. That's it! That's my wicked, evil, vile [caution: Magickal Word ahead] sexism -- simple truth that runs counter to the current leftist dogma/narrative. For, indeed, my wicked vile evil thoughtcrime, my "disparagement of women", wasn't even about women ... it was about the set of leftist lies and hypocrisies known as feminism, and about the un-men who peddle feminism.

Nevertheless, "[W]hy is it necessary that men be “supportive” if women are so “strong and independent”? Does not the role designated to modern-day men give the lie to the whole egalitarian myth?"

Further, why do the very women who most loudly assert how "strong and independent" they are *always* run to mere men to remediate the consequences of their own ill-advised choices?

The truth is, it's "Neanderthals" like me who treat women as equals, while the "sensitive and affirming" types, like B.Prokop ... and Victor Reppert ... constantly patronize the entire sex.

I just don't have the energy

[the post is still in composition]

... to do more at the moment than roll my eyes --

Victor Reppert: Should God have to make everything clear?

One theme of atheists is that if God were to exist, he would make everything clear, and there would not be a multiplicity of religions. Why think a God, if God existed, would make everything clear. If everything were clear, we would have no real choices. There would be one choice, and all other choices would be punished, and everyone would know what that punishment was and do the right thing for selfish motives.

Addendum 2013/01/14:
So, what what is I was rolling my eyes over?

One might think me to be rolling my eyes over that particular "[o]ne theme of atheists[, which] is that if God were to exist, he would make everything clear, and there would not be a multiplicity of religions", but one would be mistaken.

Oh, don't get me wrong, that popular "theme" is bad enough, and it's frequently (perhaps even generally) offered not as an intellectually honest, albeit mistaken, objection to the claims and logic of Biblical religion, but as a red-herring, as a pointless rabbit-trail, as a distraction to avoid confronting the atheist's own illogic and irrationality. Yet, 'frequently', or even 'generally', does not equal 'always'.

No, I am rolling my eyes over Mr Reppert's response to that "theme" (which response seems to be very popular with "theists").

I see two main objections to such a response:

1) To the extent that the particular 'atheist' raised the original objection as an intellectually honest, albeit mistaken (and, in fact, illogical), argument against the claims and logic of Biblical religion, such a response is nothing more than a dodge.

2) To the extent that the particular 'atheist' raised the original objection as an intellectually dishonest argument against the claims and logic of Biblical religion, such a response is nothing more than a dodge.

Ah! But the dodges are quite different ... as I intend to explain with a later addendum to this post.

Addendum 2013/01/19:
1) To the extent that the particular 'atheist' raised the original objection as an intellectually honest, albeit mistaken (and, in fact, illogical), argument against the claims and logic of Biblical religion, such a response is nothing more than a dodge.

"One theme of atheists is that if God were to exist, he would make everything clear, and there would not be a multiplicity of religions. Why think a God, if God existed, would make everything clear. If everything were clear, we would have no real choices. There would be one choice, and all other choices would be punished, and everyone would know what that punishment was and do the right thing for selfish motives."

Assuming that the 'atheist' intends to be offering a logical and rational objection to "religion" (and one ought to operate by that assumption, so long as one can), if one sets out to answer his objection, then one has the obligation to take him, and his objection, seriously. But, since this objection is illogical, taking the 'atheist' seriously means trying to help him see (*) that his objection doesn't even apply, seeing as it is illogical. And, moreover, even if it weren't illogical, it doesn't even begin to touch the truth known via reason that atheism is false, can be shown and know to be false, and cannot be true (as see here, for example)

Non-exhaustively, and in no particular order, here are some of the ways in which this popular objection is illogical:
1) The premise that "if God were to exist, he would make everything clear" is easliy deniable. It certainly isn't a self-evident truth; it's really just an unsupported, and unsupportable, assertion. Thus, from the very start, the argument certainly appears to be unsound. And do note, the burden of proof does not lie with the denier of this proposition, but with its asserter.
2) While it is never explicitly stated, a twin assertion/premise almost always being made with the assertion that "if God were to exist,he would make everything clear" is that God would have the moral obligation to "make everything clear." Again, this is easily deniable; it isn't a self-evident truth, and there is no valid reason ever offered for believing it true.
3) There is a triplet assertion/premise, never explicitly stated: "if God were to exist,he *could* make everything clear" Such an assertion denies human freedom; in this case, the freedom to ignore or deny what has been shown to be true. But, we all know -- including those who explicitly deny it -- that we *are* free, including that we are free to deny what we know to be true: we are free to lie, not only to others, but to ourselves.
4) The inference as stated is also easily deniable, and further, we all know from experience that it is false (and illogical, as the implication does not follow from the conditional): "[if God were to make everything clear,] there would not be a multiplicity of religions" For, to assert such a thing is to assert that we are not (nor could be) free to ignore or deny what is clearly true (as see #3 above). But, as I said, we all know that anyone is free to ignore or deny what is clearly true and what he knows to be true.

To lay out the argument contained in that "theme", it is something like this:
(Premise #1):___________"if God were to exist,he would make everything clear"
(Inference/Premise #2):___"if God were to exist,he could make everything clear"
(Inference/Premise #3):___"if God were to exist,he should make everything clear"
(Inference/Premise #4):___"if God were to make everything clear, there would not be a multiplicity of religions"
(Observation #1):________"There *is* a multiplicity of religions"
(Conclusion):___________"God does not exist."

Alternately -- and this is the version I think is far more commonly intended -- the 'atheist' may mean to argue something like this:
(Hidden Assumption #1):___"if God were to exist,he should make everything clear"
(Hidden Assumption #2):___"if God were to exist,he could make everything clear"
(Explicit Premise #3):___"if God were to exist,he would make everything clear"
(Inference/Premise #4):___"if God were to make everything clear, there would not be a multiplicity of religions"
(Observation #1):________"There *is* a multiplicity of religions"
(Conclusion):___________"God does not exist."

Or, to simplify both versions -- while still making exactly the same argument -- it can be stated thusly:
(Premise #1):___________"if God were to exist, there would not be a multiplicity of religions"
(Observation #1):________"There *is* a multiplicity of religions"
(Conclusion):___________"God does not exist."

As I've already explained, the inference contained in the first premise does not follow from anything. It's unsupported and unsupportable; it ignores human freedom and human susceptibility to error. The argument is not only unsound, it is invalid.

To look at this in a slightly different way, what the 'atheist' is *really* saying is: "IF God existed, THEN he woud not allow me to deny that he exists. SINCE I do deny that God exists, THEREFORE God does not exist."

This is not not just illogical, it's irrational.

And, to look at this in yet a slightly different way, and to state something I long ago noticed about 'atheists', they are demanding that God force himself upon them. Which is to say, 'atheists' demand that God must prove himself to them by being a cosmic rapist; whereas Christianity avows that God is a cosmic lover, that he does not force himself upon anyone but makes himself plain to anyone willing to know him.


Then, there is the fact, which should never be overlooked, that reason alone demonstrates to us that atheism is false. For, reason alone demonstrates to us that to assert atheism is also to assert that we cannot reason -- this absurd second assertion is a logically inescapable entailment of the first assertion. Therefore, since the second assertion is absurd and is a logical entailment of the first assertion, reason alone demonstrates to us that the first assertion is itself absurd. Do note, the argument to which I linked assumes atheistic presuppositions and then still shows -- on those very presuppositions -- that there is, after all, a Creator-God, who is personal and transcendant of time-and-space.



But, Mr Reppert's response, however popular it is with some Christians and Jews, does not take the 'atheist' and his objection seriously. It dodges the question the 'atheist' thinks he's asking, and it dodges the real task of attempting to help him see that he isn't reasoning correctly.

And the very feeble motion this response makes toward flagging the illogic of the objection is itself illogical. For, Reppert didn't actually point out that the dual proposition that "if God were to exist, he would make everything clear, and there would not be a multiplicity of religions" doesn't follow from anything and disregards human freedom to ignore any evidence at all; he rather offered a false, and illogical, proposition as argument against the former proposition: "If everything were clear, we would have no real choices" -- which false proposition *also* happens to be a common "theme of atheists".

(*) His reaction to *that* may well help one determine whether the assumption that he intended a logical and rational objection to "religion" is a valid, much less defensible, assumption, after all.


2) To the extent that the particular 'atheist' raised the original objection as an intellectually dishonest argument against the claims and logic of Biblical religion, such a response is nothing more than a dodge.

"One theme of atheists is that if God were to exist, he would make everything clear, and there would not be a multiplicity of religions. Why think a God, if God existed, would make everything clear. If everything were clear, we would have no real choices. There would be one choice, and all other choices would be punished, and everyone would know what that punishment was and do the right thing for selfish motives."

Look at the heart of Mr Reppert's response to this common "theme", as he put it, of 'atheists' -- "If everything were clear, we would have no real choices." This "answer" doesn't even approach being the truth of the matter -- choice isn't a function of, or result of, ignorance, but of freedom, of agency. Likewise, the number of potential choices available to an agent at any particular nexus is not a function of his knowledge or ignorance (that he may know of all the potential choices he might make is a different matter).

Consider: were someone to ask you, "What does one plus one make?" -- it is not the case that there is only one answer you could possibly choose to give as response to the question. There is only one correct answer to the question, and we all know what that correct answer is, but there are literally an infinity of infinities of responses you could freely choose to make. You know the one, single correct answer to the question; but, being an agent, being free to choose or not choose any available option, you are not constrained to give that one, single correct answer to the question.

To put it bluntly, just as you can choose to guess when you do not know the correct answer, you can choose to lie when you do know the correct anwer.

This is false: utterly false, and false on multiple levels.