Tue 9 Sep 2008
Fucking creepy….
Tue 19 Aug 2008
GET INVOLVED! PROTEST! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!
1) Gather Your Strength
2) Find a Protest Location
3) Wear a Mask!
Mon 18 Aug 2008
Crazy Shit on Godtube! - RFID Chips, The New World Order and The End Times!
Posted by Going Churching[9] Comments
Thu 14 Aug 2008
Doc Bob is one of my favorite textual critics. Below is one of his arguments against the resurrection of Jesus, taken from his debate with Reverend Dwight Knight.Part 1:
Part2:
Part3:
Thu 14 Aug 2008
Last night I was sitting around and started thinking about how much I’d like to see the episode of Wife Swap with that crazy “Christian warrior” lady. Thanks to Youtube, we can all bask in the insanity once again.
::sigh:: This is what TV should be like all the time. Talk about entertainment!
Wed 13 Aug 2008
Technomonk gives us a beautifully written account of his thoughts and feelings on raising his little girl to be free, independent and rational in his blog post, THRIVE!. I thought I would pass it along to everyone.
Mon 11 Aug 2008
Fri 8 Aug 2008
Thu 7 Aug 2008
A Critique of Matt Slick’s Copy & Paste Bullshit on Relativism
Posted by Going Churching[6] Comments
Every once in a while, I like to torture myself by going over to Matt Slick’s website to read over the arguments that he establishes for use in the Christian/anti-atheist community. Included on his website is a copy/paste section, where users have access to simple talking points about various topics, that they can freely use on internet discussion forums, chat rooms, etc. One of the more ridiculous sections, is his answers for people arguing against the idea of relativism, or relative truth. Instead of enabling the neo-apologists on the internetz with valid, structured arguments against relativism, he basically shows people how to engage in bullshit sophistry.
Take a look at Matt’s page on relativism and come back for my comments. Done? Good.
Matt uses semantical and linguistic arguments to try and confuse the issue at hand. His tactic is to explode the notion of individualistic, experience-based perceptions of truth and reality found in relativism to an absolute position. Basically it boils down to something like, “relativism as an absolute construct is flawed because in it’s ‘anything goes’ nature of argument, it debunks itself as an absolute construct.” What Matt fails to realize is that while relativism may be an “absolute” construct of thought, it’s positions, or the quantity of the construct is not made up of notions of absolute truth, reality, etc. He argues against the notions, in an attempt to prove the absolute construct as false. In using this tactic, it is obvious that Matt misses the point of the content of the construct itself.
The approach that Matt Slick is taking here, is one wherein the counter position is only trying to “win” the argument by displacing the issue at hand. This is a dishonest approach by the counter position, which shows that they have no real concern in breaking down the ideas of relativism and showing them false, but only wish to easily dispense with their relativist opponent.
What does this do? Well, for one, it leaves the argument floating out in the aether. No one has addressed the nature of the relativist claims, and we are no closer to understanding a more comprehensible idea of what truth, reality, etc. is or might be. Secondly, it perpetuates the perverse notion that argument and debate within our cultures and societies is an establishment of contest. Throughout the history of honest intellectual debate, the point has never been to leave your opponent in the dust, licking his wounds in defeat. The point of honest intellectual debate is to progress towards a better understanding of the concepts and issues being addressed, for everyone involved, so that potential answers or solutions to those issues can hopefully be found. We see this disordered mentality present (as one example) in the U.S. presidential debates. The issues at hand are presented and argued, but after the lights have dimmed and the room starts to clear, immediately, news correspondents start debating amongst themselves who the victor of the debate was. Victory in a debate is only had when the issues present are resolved, or put to rest. This is not a victory held by one side, but shared by the community benefiting from the debate of those issues.
So, do I hold to the ideological construct of relativism? Yes and no. To an extent, all of our individual experiences shape our individual perceptions of functional and applied truth and our ideas of reality. The fact that there are multitudes that believe in magical super-beings that exist outside of time and space, while others believe that this is a ludicrous idea, shows us that there are obviously individual perceptions that lead different types of people to different types of ideas on how they live their lives. At the same time, there are elements to our individual perceptions on reality that we all seem to share. To a great extent, we all wish to have our individual freedoms to be able to perceive and apply our own truths on reality without forceful limitation. We all seem to care somewhat about self-preservation. On a more basic/silly level, we can all agree that breathing air is a necessity for human life, without having to debate it.
Aside from this, I think that truth is not absolutely relative to the point that it shouldn’t be explored. This is the problem I have with people like Matt Slick and his neo-apologist trainees, utilizing his copy/paste non-answers. We have to weigh our arguments against each other. We have to strive towards what the truth of reality might be, if there is a common reality to embrace. We have to pick apart our own arguments and the arguments of one another, based on the content of the issue at hand, in an honest manner, even if it proves to be difficult. If we continue to approach debate with the sole mindset of defeating our opponents, by twisting terms and arguing solely on the basis of linguistics and semantics, then we are not weighing the ideas themselves. We are not seeking the answers to our questions. We are defeating ourselves.
