Someone online is wrong: Time to blog about it.

SJ Thomason: BLOG OF SO MUCH WRONG (click me for post)

Oh good. SJ Thomason has a thing that is wrong in every possible way for me to pick apart. Sigh.

Because its about Tracie Harris (who is awesome and I have a crush on) I must write about how wrong this is. Because maybe Tracie will see it, and then date me. Also I'll get one million dollars free somehow... anyway, onto this blog.

Quote:

Does God Lock the Door? 

The first “great” point that Harris makes is that she has no way to assess the “truth” of the “reality” of theist’s “claims.” She says that if one claims that there is a chair in a room, she should be able to go into the room to verify the truth on whether a chair is present as claimed. She claims that she can’t check the presence of the chair, though, because the “door is locked” so she has no “access to the chair” and she can’t “get through that locked door.” These assertions are based on the assumption that God locks the door on people.

End Quote.



This is an analogy. Rather then a door we could say it is a box with something inside the box, and no one can open the box. Then people claim that something is in the box. They will not provide anything other then the claim. So you do not, and can not know what is in the box. 

But, of course SJ runs with the door because then she gets to ignore the problem at hand and strawman the whole point being made. I'll explain...

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
You, and others claim there is an (X). No one can see (X) no one can test (X) there is no other way to know about (X) then a book.

Said book has additional problems: Its unscientific, its been changed over time, its been mistranslated, some of it is based on tradition rather then fact, very little of it has any support in archaeology (a handful of kings & locations)  and much of it is counter to what we know. IE: Camels
It contains stories that seem to be plagiaristic of earlier stories, it has no known authorship, AND said book is offered in a wide selection of flavors, AND people that follow the teachings of the book view the book in every possible way there is and even ways that seem impossible AND also there are other issues with the book like missing citations. Its unremarkable and seems typical for writings of its time. It was edited together in the past in a non-scientific way without any oversight and without any coherent method. Also it has a number of contradictions in it.

But yeah sure SJ go with the door because that will miss the whole point that Tracy is making that clearly went over your head and/or that you just have to strawman in effort to make your argument even work. You should call into the atheist experience sometime... oh you did.

Quote:

The Bible makes it clear

End Quote.

SJ does know what circular reasoning is right? The claim of what is behind the door (or in the box) is made in the bible. YEAH WE KNOW THAT. We do not care what the darn claims made in the bible are! SHOW US WHAT IS IN THE BOX OR BEHIND THE DOOR. Bleep me.

Also, SJ clearly has no clue who Paul is talking to (hint: its not the modern day person). Not that it matters since I do not know if Paul even existed or talked to anyone, but even if he did - again, these claims are also made about what is behind the door (in the box) that we are asking to see that the people Paul is talking to have seen (or so the story suggests) this is not, I repeat not about us.

SJ's tack is to simply make A NEW CLAIM that (non-believers/and anyone else who doesn't believe in this god) are SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH™ the fact that anyone and everyone could make this as a counter-claim to her I suspect, is not something SJ has really considered to be a problem.

SJ: You are suppressing the truth that the bible is false. You know deep down that its all a lie and just pretend its true because you are afraid of death.

Hey look I can do it as well! Everyone can!... THIS IS BAD LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

(1) How can Harris apply her atheistic relative moral values to make a judgment on the morality of people who lived thousands of years ago in a far different culture and context than our present culture and context?
(2) Does evil serve any purpose in this world?

End Quote.

Do you know that Harris has relative morals? What ethical system does she use? Do you know that?
You do also know that there IS NO "atheistic" ANYTHING. .... ITS NOT A WORLD VIEW!!!!!!!! Bleep me SJ should know that... but its way easier to claim that atheism is a world view if not outright then by implication. What a mess.

Your question, other then making a ton of assumptions and being loaded, also does nothing to prove your above question that you are not answering by asking more questions! You set out to show that there is proof that Harris has "locked the door to god" yet offer nothing to show this is the case. Of course, you must show there is a god to lock the door to in the first place, but that is a whole other problem on top of the problems you have! Geez! You fix all your problems with bigger problems?!

Your second question is very strange. Although its irreverent to the matter at hand, its asked as if the answer would prove a point.

I can only guess at what SJ thinks the answer is. I would just say that if anything that had a mind made it possible for evil to exist - even if there is some purpose then that mind has made evil, and the ends therefor must justify the means.

I do not personally agree with the idea that the ends justifies the means, at least not in full. Perhaps in some cases, but not in every case. What we have for Christian apologetic's is an effort to explain away why there is "evil" in the world if "god" is "good" and has "all power". The problem of evil argument only negates one type of god (most Christian's view of god). Its simply irreverent if Harris has used that argument or not - was that argument connected to the earlier door analogy? If not, who cares? Are we talking about a different argument made? I guess! Its unclear from the blog what argument we are covering here and - well, these are clips being covered... so, they are not even the full argument.

It really doesn't matter because SJ doesn't seem to understand the point Harris is making about morals. If Harris used the argument from evil or not. If Harris said her morals are better then those of your bible or your god idea. Harris might in fact, have better morals or we might ask how we can establish who has better morals. However, such things would require a good understanding of logic.

Quote:

Atheistic Relative Moral Values

End quote.

No. There are no "atheistic" anything.
Some people (who might be atheists) hold to relative moral values, some do not.
You get wrong what relative moral values are, and also make no mention of ethics. I'm going to skip most of this.

Quote:

The cultures in the Old Testament and in civilization in general during ancient times were much different than they are today. Slavery was prevalent throughout the Roman Empire and in other cultures worldwide

End quote.

This isn't a problem under relative moral values. SJ wants to have both relative and objective morals (Somehow) but if "god" knows what moral is BEST .... why not just tell people what that is?

It should not matter what the culture is like - ITS GOD. If slavery is wrong (always objectively) then God should have told the people at the time "THIS IS BAD" - God did not. So its "okay" then but not okay now. When did God say it was not okay? When did God ever say "No longer enslave people" or "Slavery is immoral" ????? Its not in your bible. So.... I guess God didn't say that did it? Therefor we, today, who think (broadly speaking) that slavery is bad... are in fact, doing better then God did. Because, unlike God - we are SAYING ITS BAD.

Quote:

Accordingly, evil does serve a purpose. Evil, self-enhancement, gender inequalities, and injustice help shape our views on what’s right. Evil helps us to appreciate the values of love, self-transcendence, human equality, and justice. Accordingly, Tracie Harris should not consider herself more moral than our Creator. He is shaping us for greatness.

End Quote

Prove this point. Do not just say it as if it is true. Show me a large scale data sample of humans that proves this is true.

Oh - you don't have that? Yeah, so this is again, a claim you have made, with no evidence to back it.

As such, we must dismiss it.

Quote:

Accordingly, evil does serve a purpose. Evil, self-enhancement, gender inequalities, and injustice help shape our views on what’s right. Evil helps us to appreciate the values of love, self-transcendence, human equality, and justice. Accordingly, Tracie Harris should not consider herself more moral than our Creator. He is shaping us for greatness.

End quote.

This is your view SJ. Assertions made without any proof to back them. I do not see here any solution to the problem of evil. The idea that a god uses evil for anything simply means that god has less knowledge then humans do. I and others would never, ever use evil for anything if we can avoid doing so. If I am in charge of making the whole of the cosmos, I would not have evil in it at all. You wouldn't need it. To "shape your view of what is right" - I thought you were pre-built with knowing what is right in your heart or something? Why would you need your view shaped - didn't God just tell you what to do or not do? This god concept becomes more and more incoherent the more you ask critical questions about it.

Your "Creator" is less moral then I am. I can not speak to what morals Tracie has per-say, as I do not know what they are, or are not, nor do I know her ethical system. If I had to guess I would guess that Tracie (based on what I recall of her saying) would not want harm to come to people, so if Tracie was able to save everyone from harm, she would. Yet Tracy does not have that sort of power. Nor do I. If I had the power to stop anything/anyone from doing (X) thing that harms (Z) thing... I would. Your god (if it exists) does not do a damn thing, in fact according to you, it lets this happen to "shape" people. How does lava exploding upon a house shape anyone when they are dead thanks to said lava?

In fact, what the bleep could we learn here and now that we can not learn in the eternal realm that you also believe in? What about the numerous counter examples where bad events lead people to no longer believe in god?

Ah well - such questions would require some critical thinking. I suspect if they are addressed it will be more strawmaning and/or goal shifting. SJ is very good at apologetic's.

That is not a complement.

We do not have any empirical proof of the claims SJ has made.
SJ has offered no test that can be repeated to demonstrate her claims.
And we did not see even a hint of a valid & sound argument.

Because of this, we must be skeptical, of her conclusions.