I didn’t mention it previously, but I did dash off a reply to Mr. William Michael’s email which I posted earlier. Here’s what I said:
William,
That’s some impressively tortured logic you’ve got going there. Doesn’t tend to lend well to your claim that you can answer any argument I might be able to put forth. Atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief. It has no bearing on politics, marriage, or holidays. How you figure those three things imply an “end to human life higher than survival” is beyond me. I bow to your superior, if somewhat spurious, logic.
I do appreciate the email, though. It’s sure to amuse the folks who drop by my blog. Thanks for sending it along!
Les
I figured that would be enough to piss him off and he’d wander back into whatever dark recess he had scurried out from as most of the Catholics I’ve gotten email from tend to do. Usually it’s the Evangelicals that are persistent, but it appears Mr. Michael is of sterner stuff as he replied back:
Les,
As I expected, you suggest that my logic is flawed, but provide no reason for your criticism other than your opinion. That kind of dumb response is what I meant when I said you should leave the little pond of idiots and put up some real reasons for your views—-which you obviously think are important enough to post on a website. Your too acustomed to picking on the little girls, like Georgie Porgie…”when the boys came out to play, Georgie Porgie ran away.”
Having opinions without demonstrable reasons is called “prejudice” and suggests a lack of proof rather than any real thought. Every fool has an opinion. Rhetorically, if you had reasons you were ready to stand behind you’d be able to let them speak for you, rather than suggesting that the support of your blog viewers is proof. If numbers of supporters is proof, then I think Catholicism would win on a worldwide contest. Knowing you don’t think that, what are your reasons?
Here are some questions I bet you will struggle to answer in a positive way.
- What is the purpose of human life? You obviously cannot have an opinion about what a government should do before you can state what the purpose of life even is. I would love to read your answer to a question like this. Again, not you picking on other people’s answers, but something of your own for consideration.
- What makes a day or event greater than any other? After all, to set a holiday as a day of rest from other activities, or to recognize one event over another, implies that one is more significant than the other. What exactly is this system of ranking events in the mind of an atheist? Also, if holidays are intended to be celebrated in common, what would be the link that bound these groups together? Or would there be as many holidays as individuals?
- What is the starting principle from which you define human rights? I’d like to understand how an atheist concludes that humans have any “rights”. The idea of a human right assumes that (a) there is a law higher than that of the individual and (b) that right is evident to humans in general, not in particular. What exactly do you believe those rights are and what is your justification for them?
Again, refutations are a dime a dozen, demonstrations are the proof of reason and truth. State your ideas positively, and we’ll know whether you really have anything to say. Maybe you can post your answers to my questions on your blog and let people offer criticism of them. After all, you’re a free thinker and no prejudiced or narrow-minded individual, right?
Bill Michael
***
William Michael, Director
Classical Liberal Arts Academy
Phone: (704)764-8641
E-Mail: mail@classicalliberalarts.com
I’ve not replied yet as I thought I’d take some time and consider my answers, but I will get to it eventually. I thought you folks would be interested in seeing his latest missive, though, so here you go.
The Catholic Church is consistent?
Really?
How then do you explain the Nicaean Council?
Vatican I & II?
Why do Masses vary greatly from continent to continent, country to country? And i’m not just speaking of language.
Oh, and your point about our “belief” is why i have such a tough time when “we” say “we believe there is no god.”
It’s not that i believe that there’s no god. It’s that i don’t believe that there is a god.
Lack of belief isn’t a belief.
Elwed, you’re not allowed to call it fiction- it’s Rhetoric.
Oh, I forget. According to BtW, it’s all about form over content
From William:
The section I’ve highlighted above is what I am referring to William… You claim that we wouldn’t take the man seriously that claims he is so hungry he could eat a horse. But this does not coincide with your example from the Bible. Why? Because we are not claiming the hungry man speaks literal truth. Where as you claim the Bible is literal truth. Do you see the inconsistency of your argument?
Then you go on to claim the reason we make claims against the Bible is because those are the rhetorical parts. WTF!! If there are parts in the Bible not meant to be taken literally than I don’t take any of it in a literal sense. I take it as a work of fiction. It was re-written and translated so many times I don’t know how anyone can take it as a work of factual importance.
But whatever, I’ll humor you… Why don’t you tell us which parts the drunken priests wrote we should take seriously?
Okay,
Let’s try to clarify some things here. We just go around in circles. I’m asking for your answers to these questions sincerely. I have to admit that I do not know where this information i to be found (reliably).
1. What proof is there the biblical flood did NOT happen?
2. What proof is there that the earth is 4.6 billion years old?
My assumption is that this informaton depends on a long chain of assumptions, and I’d like to try and identify some of them.
No name-calling, etc.. Help me to understand where you’re coming from.
William –
1. When the path of logic involves, “But did you look EVERYWHERE?”, then it usually falls on the shoulders of the person making the extraordinary claim to provide proof. Has science looked EVERYWHERE for proof of the biblical flood? No. How about you tell scientists where to start. In the meantime, I assume they will continue to not find evidence in the places it should be.
What proof do you have that [insert opposing claim to Catholic belief] doesn’t exist?
It’s rhetorically unfair to even ask such questions.
2. There isn’t a simple answer to this question. There are volumes of research dedicated to this very topic. Does your school have online access to science journals and research? If not, you should check into subscribing to such databases. Your students will benefit from the access, just as I did when in school. Also, JSTOR was pretty cool for non-science subjects (humanities, literature, etc.). Although, it might be cost-prohibitive.
- Matt
Matt, you should know by now that BtW has a thing about shifting the burden of proof
I’ll let someone from the scientific community answer those questions succinctly, and scientifically.
Let me answer the first with common sense.
Try putting two of every animal on a boat. Now make sure that boat is only 300x50x30 cubits.
Where did you put the elephants? I wouldn’t want that load to shift.
Where did Noah get the platypus? Why didn’t they stick around Ararat, i mean sure, some of them had to migrate back to Australia, but wouldn’t you expect some of them to breed and populate around where they landed?
Let me answer the second with my own eyes.
Giant Sequoia trees. I’ve counted rings on trees that were around when your god walked as man. I don’t for a minute think that they’re the first to live so long. I’d imagine that to evolve to be so fire and disease resistant, would have taken a pretty good number of mutations. For something that grows so slowly, i’d imagine eons. Assumption, sure but it’s based on my own eyes, and demonstratable patterns (i.e. evolution)
And if you want to go on a limb, go back and read the previous comment about Carbon dating (page 3 or 4 i think), then read this…
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/dalarna_spruce_in_sweden_is_worlds_oldest_living_tree
A tree that is older than the earth. At least if you count the years in the bible. Adam and Eve begat Cain who begat… and all that…
All in all, i’d rather believe something that i can repeat (or at least witness), than something that happened one time to one person who told some people who wrote it down.
ditto everyone else…
William you are shifting the burden of proof from you to us. It doesn’t work that way. If x is generally accepted as a truth, theory, or fact, then when person A makes a claim against x, it is up to person A to provide evidence and reasoned arguments to explain the claim. In other words, when we ask you to explain the great flood it is not up to us to show anything, it is up to you to explain how it happened. To ask anyone here, besides TrueBelievers%trade;, to explain the flood is absurd, let alone to ask us how it could not have happened.
Will, I was finished with you before I started writing my first post. There is not a dam thing I can say that can pull you to see it our way. Why bother? I have more valuable things to do with my time then pointless debate with a true believer with a logic problem.
Peace, I’ll let Les, LH, and Patness take care of you. Good on ya boys, good on ya.
AA
AA, don’t leave or he’ll declare victory again
z- you ask:
If William doesn’t mind, I’ll field this one. The Nicaean Council was inspired by God to separate the sheep from the goats. That is, all the Bible stories that were God’s truth and politically expedient remained on the table; those that were too hippy-trippy and seditious were cast into the outer darkness. For instance, if you are steadfast of soul, read this (from the Gospel of Thomas):
Who’s going to pay attention to the priests after reading satanic verses like this one? This is obviously the work of the Devil, trying to undermine the Church. God guided the Nicaean Council to put together the Bible we have today, which is literally true in all its parts, except for those that are fictionally true.
William, where’s the proof that you DID NOT molest a child? We know that some Catholics molest children and we know that you are a Catholic and I heard from John that you’ve molested a child. Ergo, using the logic you seem to be employing, we can safely assume you’ve molested a child unless you can prove that you did not.
Ain’t shifting the burden of proof fun?
I stumbled across this sight when I googled jello recipies and saw one that supposedly ‘tasted like ass’..looked
good, but it tasted like shit…
William,
While your sportsman-like conduct is admirable, you fail to comprehend even the simplist of what you read.
I made no mention of a Catholic School in my post.
Nor did I mention a teacher.
Nor even a book for that matter.
Bravo, you’re right. It’s not part of school curriculum.
And when confronted, the adult’s focus was, ” this story is a lie”, not on the suffering child.
You offer to call my bluff, but you don’t offer to call my 7 year old neice.
The statement I did make however (with regards to the passage), was quietly dismissed, left uncontested in liu of
ego-driven exhibition of self, and therefor, thus far, we would have to agree, evaluates to true.
And I see now that the ‘caps-lock’ without the dirty words would be completly devoid of all passion, un-like His Word which apparently.. does.. not.. move.. you?
Shamefull William. Very shameful.
Go ahead, ask me for proof of my story William.
Either you will or you won’t.
To either I say simply…
checkmate.
Like that? learnt it over in Rhetoric School.
Well, it’s been insightfull reading however now I must now return to my far less techno home, and so would like to thank you Les, for providing a wonderful channel where people can voice without fear of cencorship, and without the barbarism normally associated with war. Your leadership proves (to me) to be based on powerful example rather
than the promotion of ‘Cause I said so-ism’.
No you bloody don’t- I’m getting fed up with baby sitting.
I can try; I’ll have to bottle-feed. Oh, and no more 700 Club – 8pm bedtime.
I’ll still be watching. If I feel I need to interject I shall do so. It seems he has grown tired of it too though. Although, Les, if you could find a space or put a link on the side bar to this chat I think it would be easier for all.
It’s premature to call all clear. However that may be, I doubt that this thread deserves a quick reference—unless it’s a showcase for train wrecks