Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

And Another Atheist in From the Cold!

A recent blog concerning a man who left Atheism for Jesus Christ attracted some blind denial from an Atheist. I don't want to labour this blogspot with the multitude of similar accounts of conversion but just one more at this stage won't hurt.

John Sanford made a similar change. Wikipedia records he was formerly an Atheist but became a Christian following his observations in Genetics.

In his subsequent book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome Sanford says:

"Late in my career, I did something that would seem unthinkable for a Cornell professor. I began to question the Primary Axiom [Evolution]. I did this with great fear and trepidation. I knew I would be at odds with the most "sacred cow" within modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world. Although I had achieved considerable success and notoriety within my own particular specialty (applied genetics), it would mean stepping out of the safety of my own little niche. I would have to begin exploring some very big things, including aspects of theoretical genetics which I had always accepted by faith alone. I felt compelled to do all this, but I must confess that I fully expected to simply hit a brick wall. To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly "great and unassailable fortress" which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory. In fact, it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith that the "true-believers" have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection is typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending the religion of a great number of people!

To question the Primary Axiom required me to re-examine virtually everything I thought I knew about genetics
."

I can recommend the book. It is a real 'eye-opener' on what confronts humanity.

Sam Drucker

44 comments:

John said...

Sam,

In the true spirit of atheism (i.e. Stalinism, Maoism, Pol Potism, Hitlerism...) I want to tell John Sanford what he really believed before he came out of the closet: John, you weren't a real atheist. Unknown to you - but known to me - you were a theist. Why? Real atheists can't change their mind just in case this proves you were a real atheist.

If you're going to tell me that this all sounds kind of circular, then don't bother because only I can tell you what you should think.

sam drucker said...

John, I tried to follow your reasoning but got giddy going around in circles - had to pull out because I was heading for a fall.

The kind of thinking applied by some people - not you, but those you mimic - is damaging to good health.

Sam Drucker

Peter said...

John (or Sam),

Before becoming a Christian was John Sanford a Stalinist, Maoist, Pol Potist or Hitlerist?

sam drucker said...

Peter, does he have to be any of those?

BTW, I am still waiting for you to justify your statement about me - "You are a name calling real Christian."

Sam Drucker

John said...

Peter,

Quiz.

Question 1.

What is the common feature linking Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and John Sanford?

Do/are they

a. Vegetarian?

b. Like flower arranging?

c. Get dressed up in women's clothes?

d. Ride Vespas?

e. Speak with a lisp?

f. Prefer Mouton Rothschild 67 more than the 63?

g. Have nothing in common?

h. Are/were atheist?

Take your time Peter. Honestly, no rush.

Peter said...

sam drucker,

John said that "in the true spirit of atheism" an atheist belongs to those type of "-isms". I just wondered if John Sanford belong to those kind of "-isms" and was according to John's criteria a true atheist.

I think you have called me a "hypocrite" before when we discussed abortion. True or not that is a name calling, but hey no hard feelings. If it makes you feel better I'll retract my statement. You are not a name calling Christian.

Peter said...

John,

You did not answer my question, but I'm a good sport and answer yours. Your question is a tricky one. Stalin was not a vegetarian, Mao was not in flower arrangements, Hitler was not an atheist etc. I don't know John; perhaps the answer is c) of g). Hmmm... I think the correct answer is not in your list. Ok my best guess: They were all creationists! (And that belief caused all the mass killings). Is that right John?

Warwick said...

Peter, I notice you have avoided any comment about Dr Carl Wieland ex-Atheist now Christian activist.

You also had nothing to say about Dr Rick Smalley, scientist, Professor of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, Nobel prize winner in Chemistry. Definitely an agnostic, evolutionist who became a Christian Creationist.

Was he a really, trooly, scientist Peter?

Repent now and miss the rush!

Peter said...

Warwick,

I don't know much about Dr Carl Wieland. Do you have any evidence that he was an atheist?

Dr Rick Smalley was obviously a real scientist who knew that the earth is 13.7BY old. Many famous scientists have believed in weird things like gods, magic and supernatural events. Some even believe in poor copies of Mesopotamian creation story.

I don’t need to repent now. When our Lord Saviour Mithras comes back I have plenty of evidence and time to repent if required.

sam drucker said...

Peter, you said:

"I think you have called me a "hypocrite" before when we discussed abortion."

Ah, yes, I think some 12 months ago I applied the noun to your behaviour. Perhaps I should have said your behaviour was hypocritical.

You said to Warwick:

"I don't know much about Dr Carl Wieland. Do you have any evidence that he was an atheist?"

Why do you ask? Written or oral testimony from the person concerned doesn't seem to budge the scales covering your eyes. That might change, however, if you were prepared to be even just a little objective.

Sam Drucker

John said...

Peter,

Common, and self-serving, atheist mistake regarding Hitler's religion: he was clearly an atheist.

Warwick said...

Peter, it seems your only tactics are evasion and denial.

The point regarding Dr Smalley is that he was a scientist of the highest echelon who investigated evolution (the foundation of atheism) and found it to be crap! He became a Christian who still 'believed' in billions of years. He died soon after becoming a Christian. Fortunately I lasted longer and had time to investigate the belief in long ages and found it wanting. I am confident he would have found the same, given enough time. Many before him have.

Regarding Dr Wieland who has been a friend for 20 years, you asked "Do you have any evidence that he was an atheist?" Plenty. Do I have any evidence that you are an atheist? In your terms absolutely none.

Do I have evidence that you are a goose? Plenty, and all out of your own mouth.

Peter said...

Sam Drucker,

Warwick made the claim. I’m just asking for evidence. Personal testimonies are unfortunately the least reliable type.


John,

Do you have any evidence that Hitler was an atheist?


Warwick,

What's your point about Dr Smalley? You put 'believed' in quotes regarding billions of years. Why should I believe he became 'Christian' if even you don't believe what he claimed?

Funny how whenever I ask for evidence you make more claims but never show any evidence for your claim. Do you actually believe in your claims, and if you do believe did you ever try to find any evidence to support your ideas? I made no claim of my atheism or being a goose, so why another red herring? Evidence please?

Warwick said...

Peter, The point with Dr Smalley is that he is a highly qualified and awarded scientist who was challenged to have a long hard look at his belief in microbe to man evolution. He did so and found it to be poor science, which made him angry. This discovery lead to his conversion to Christianity. Interestingly he later delivered an anti-Darwin address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents Recognition Program, in 2004. He is just what you say does not happen, a highly qualified scientist and evolutionist becomes a Christian who rejects evolution. That he still believed in the long-ages is a testimony to the power of indoctrination. Many others become Christian still believing in long-ages and come to believe otherwise. He died in 2004 before he had time to come to the correct understanding.
Interestingly Smalley’s rejection of evolution as poor science is akin to the words of Dr John Sandford, once atheist, now Christian, who wrote the following about evolution:
“I gradually realized that the seemingly "great and unassailable fortress" which has been built up around the Primary Axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory. In fact, it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives largely from bluster, smoke, and mirrors. A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith that the "true-believers" have in the omnipotence of natural selection. Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection is typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment which can only be described as religious. I started to realize (again with trepidation) that I might be offending the religion of a great number of people!” From his book: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
I could give you Dr’s Sandford, and Wieland’s email addresses and they could tell you they were once atheist now Biblical creationists but would you believe them?

John said...

Peter,

You argue that "Personal testimonies are unfortunately the least reliable type" and then ask whether "[I] have any evidence that Hitler was an atheist?"

If I quote from Hitler himself, I lose, according to your own standards of acceptable evidence.

May I suggest that someone avowing an epistemology so mixed up and biased as yours, means that that person CAN'T, and WON'T, be open to truth because they've poked both their eyes out with their own thumbs.

sam drucker said...

Peter said:

"Personal testimonies are unfortunately the least reliable type."

Funny thing, societies for generation after generation have relied on personal testimony, particularly in the judicial system. Yet this is unacceptable to Peter!

It is increasingly evident that Peter would not be a right fit in any civilized society since the beginning of the world.

Sad, very sad. Snap out of the stupor Peter.

Sam Drucker

Peter said...

Warwick,

Yet another hearsay comment. I still don't get your point about Dr Smalley…

So Dr John Sandford swapped "an almost mystical faith" to a fully mystical faith. So what's your point? Is a copy of Mesopotamian creation story myth better than evolution "mystical faith"?

And no, I don't need Dr’s Sandford, and Wieland’s email addresses. Just like you I don't believe personal testimonies of "other" "mystical faiths" as evidence.


John,

You can try to make your case from Hitler's primary source material and his actions to show me that he was an atheists (No third hand rumours please). Remember that he shut down freethinkers groups and said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so". So good luck with that one. Just accept it; Der F├╝hrer was a Christian just like you.



Sam Drucker,

The judicial system does not now rely on personal testimony. Just like you I don't believe personal testimonies of the Golden Plates Joseph Smith found even when those are better recorded than Jesus' eyewitnesses. Just like you I don't believe personal testimonies how Allah has change people's lives even when millions of people claim that. You inconsistently pick and choose which personal testimonies you believe. I don't pick and choose, but apply same criteria to all. Unlike me at least you would fit right in any superstitious society since the beginning of the world.

John said...

Peter,

Now I see how miserably poor your academic standards are: Your throw in an unreferenced "quote" from Hitler. If I were marking your essay that's an immediate, and straightforward, deduction of a mark or two.

I notice you didn't respond to my questioning of the inconsistency of your epistemology. There's a further deduction. This time, however, it's five marks as it pulls the rug out from under your very own feet i.e. yours is self-defeating.

I'll wait for your reference on your Hitler misquote....but I won't hold my breath.

Warwick said...

Peter as I said "I could give you Dr’s Sandford, and Wieland’s email addresses and they could tell you they were once atheist now Biblical creationists but would you believe them?"

Would you, or would your call their direct testimony hearsay?

sam drucker said...

A person can only plumb the depths for so long before having to come up for air lest one become disoriented and lose consciousness. I have delved deep enough and long enough in trying to engage with Peter.

Before ascending back to higher levels for air let me just remind observers that the mind of Peter proffers:

"Personal testimonies are unfortunately the least reliable type."

He thus excludes the witness testimony/affidavits process applied in judicial systems past an present for ascertaining truth of a matter, references/testimonies in employment recruitment processes, and the list can go on.

Peter you WANT to be an Atheist. For the sake of an argument you will throw anything ridiculous up.

Sam Drucker

Peter said...

John,

Did the dog eat your homework again? You made the claim about Hitler's religious views, so you need to provide the evidence.

I don't get your "inconsistency of your epistemology". Could you expand?



Warwick,

Direct testimony might or might not be hearsay. If someone says "I have a pen" it is not hearsay. If someone says "God's will is to do X" it is a hearsay.

So Dr John Sandford swapped "an almost mystical faith" to a fully mystical faith. So what's your point? Is a copy of Mesopotamian creation story myth better than evolution "mystical faith"?



Sam Drucker,

Nice rhetorical nonsense there in the beginning.

You said:
"He thus excludes the witness testimony/affidavits process applied in judicial systems past an present for ascertaining truth of a matter, references/testimonies in employment recruitment processes, and the list can go on."

I did not exclude the witness testimony/affidavits process. Courts just don't take those as facts and they don't apply that to supernatural events at all. You are making a category error. Companies don't trust the references/testimonies in employment recruitment processes either. They put all new employees to at least one month probationary period to see if they can do what they claimed to be able. I can tell that you have never hired anyone.

Sam, why to I want to be an Atheist? What do I gain with it?

sam drucker said...

Peter said:

"I did not exclude the witness testimony/affidavits process."

You are playing 'bait and switch'.
By your bald statement "Personal testimonies are unfortunately the least reliable type." you reduced them to little worth and no use.

Witness testimonies and affidavits are a part of court proceedings. I have been in court where they are required.

Peter said:

"Companies don't trust the references/testimonies in employment recruitment processes either."

I have been an employer for several years and have had many dealings with other employers. References/testimonies do not stand alone but form part of the recruitment procedure. They are used and they are used by cautious real estate agencies with respect to prospective renters eg previous landlords.

I must stress again you applied a principle for life out of step with demonstrated judgment processes.

Peter asked:

"Sam, why to I want to be an Atheist? What do I gain with it?"

I presume you mean 'do' and not "to".

You are in a better position to answer that. However, such constant rejection of reasonable testimony with obfuscation in subsequent debate is a strong signal that you are not open to anything but Atheism. It is a call I have made and I doubt that I am far from the truth of the matter.

I don't see anything you gain other than some temporary pleasure at times.

Sam Drucker

John said...

Peter,

You said "Remember that [Hitler]shut down freethinkers groups and said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"."

I've asked you what is the evidence that Hitler said this. You can't give any evidence he actually said this. I ask you again, provide proof Hitler made this remark.

Now, if you had even bothered to notice primary sources like Mein Kampf, and read it (twice) like I, you'd understand Hitler wasn't a Christian. But please, I'm begging you, do not allow facts to stand in the way of a good bit of [atheist] propaganda!

I'll be still waiting here for your evidence that Hitler said what you reckon he said.

Warwick said...

Peter back on 7th October, I said this of you "In fact you know nuthin!! In reality you write surrounded by the gloom of ignorance of the facts, fuelled by bigotry!"

Considering the utter foolishness you have written since I now realize I was praising you.

You would have us believe that the first-hand testimony of such as Dr Sanford cannot be believed. Rubbish!

I don't have the time nor the inclination to correspond with anyone who would make such inane comments.

Inane "lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 2. empty; void. noun. 3. something that is empty or void, especially the void of infinite space. :10. :09 .."

Peter said...

Sam Drucker,

No 'bait and switch' there. "Personal testimonies are unfortunately the least reliable type." and little worth and no use when it comes to supernatural or religious issues. (This blog’s issues)

Witness testimonies and affidavits are part of court proceedings regarding non-supernatural issues. There testimonies regarding natural issues have value, but courts try to use other methods to establish reliability (all evidences, independent evaluations, etc.).

Landlords don't rely on references/testimonies. Those are used for screening. They rely more on credit reports and making tenants sign documents.

You said:
"I must stress again you applied a principle for life out of step with demonstrated judgment processes".

Let's not mix the categories of religious claims and non-religious claims. Why don't you believe in eyewitness reports of Mormon Golden plates if you think eyewitness reports are reliable?

How do I gain some "temporary pleasure" for not being a Christian? And what "pleasure" do you mean?


John,

You made the claim, you provide the evidence (Are you a Christian because you don't understand how to handle and evaluate evidence?)

Please show from Mein Kampf where he states that he is an Atheist. I have 1939 English translation and original German version, so you can cite either one (German text is quite readable considering the book is quite old). Just tell me the chapter you refer to. Quick search show that he refers to God or creator about 100 times in the book, so your task should be easy. Surely he denies God there many times. Surely he names an atheist not a famous Christian as his hero.


Warwick,

You seem to be quite angry. Did Christianity make you angry and violent? When I left Christianity I left my angry and violent past behind. You can become a much better and nicer person once you see the truth and leave your faith behind.

I understand that you are busy, so you don't have to spend time writing here. But have a think about it and you will see the light one day.

I hope you find reason. My warm thoughts are with you.

sam drucker said...

The questioning of personal testimony on this blogspot arose from Peter, not on this blog but on an earlier blog. When challenged about his view of personal testimony being out of step with societal standards he began to obfuscate. He has resorted to qualifying his statement, saying "Let's not mix the categories of religious claims and non-religious claims."

I have to remind Peter that he earlier said:

"What you have is second hand hear say in a form of personal testimony. Personal testimony is the worst possible evidence of anything"

Notice the use of the word "anything" - no qualification there!

Peter lies and spoils just to irritate and then feigns surprise and dismay if someone gets irritated.

Peter also said:

"Those[real estate agency testimonies of tenants] are used for screening."

Exactly!!!

Before answering your last question of me I will await your answer to John's question of you. Don't obfuscate again. Answer the question!

Sam Drucker

Warwick said...

Peter, how can you say I seem to be quite angry? You have only my word for it and you reject what people write! Don't you claim it is hearsay?

In reality you play silly word-games, and I am annoyed with myself for wasting perfectly good time writing to you.

Peter said...

Sam Drucker,

No lies or contradictions what I said before:
I said:
"...Personal testimony is the worst possible evidence of anything"
This applies to supernatural (or religious) and natural claims.

I first talked about "eyewitness reports of Mormon Golden Plates" and then you brought up "the witness testimony/affidavits process". These claims are in different categories. Courts make rulings on natural events not supernatural events.

I don't se your point about "real estate agency testimonies of tenants". If a potential tenant tells/writes that his financial record is ok, that statement is always considered incorrect if credit agency reports shows that his record is not ok. This shows my point that a personal testimony is the worst (least trusted) possible evidence.

You want me answer John's question. I think the pattern is emerging here. People here don't take the burden of proof of their claims, but for some reason expect others to provide evidence for their own and your claims. I don't think you guys understand how to handle evidence. Let me guess; all you stumbled upon a first saviour God story in your area and you still believe that story because you don't understand who has the responsibility to provide evidence, and how to evaluate claims and evidence. Is that right?


Warwick,

When you talk about your angry Christian feelings it is not hearsay. It is first hand account. I'm glad I can help you to understand evidence. I think your frustrations are bubbling to surface because you have started to see the light. I was like that before I left Christianity. Once you see the truth and leave superstition behind you will become a more moral and better person. I have great hope for you Warwick. You will become a better person.

John said...

Peter,

You're becoming increasingly dishonest, similar to one of your probable heroes, Dawkins. You've struggled to back up your claim that Hitler actually said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so".

So, come on, Peter, 'fess up: Have you made it up?

sam drucker said...

Once again I plumb the depths to Peter's argument despite the potential nonsensical exercise of contesting his view of personal testimony which, by his own view of it, rules out the validity of his testimony that personal testimonies have little or no worth. Such is the futility (or is it immaturity?) of his reasoning.

My case is proven by Peter with respect to testimonies on all fronts and more lately with real estate renters because credit ratings are accumulated from 'testimonies' of payment record.

All testimonies are assessed against other available evidence.

I leave my arguments on the record against the ground-shifting of Peter.

Peter said:

"I think the pattern is emerging here. People here don't take the burden of proof of their claims, but for some reason expect others to provide evidence for their own and your claims. I don't think you guys understand how to handle evidence. Let me guess; all you stumbled upon a first saviour God story in your area and you still believe that story because you don't understand who has the responsibility to provide evidence, and how to evaluate claims and evidence. Is that right?"

A straw man, thus inadmissable.

Peter obfuscates time and time again and now refuses to answer John's question. Peter does this because he, like me, can see what is coming and he wants to avoid the decisive outcome.

Sam Drucker

Warwick said...

Peter, I wrote: "I could give you Dr’s Sandford, and Wieland’s email addresses and they could tell you they were once atheist now Biblical creationists but would you believe them?"

"Would you, or would your call their direct testimony hearsay?"

You replied: "Direct testimony might or might not be hearsay."

As this is a reply to the above you are saying you would not necessarily believe what they wrote, or said to you!

But now you write: "When you talk about your angry Christian feelings it is not hearsay."

In reality I have not talked about my angry feelings, that is a figment of your imagination, as I do not have any. I actually wrote: " I am annoyed with myself for wasting perfectly good time writing to you."

You seem quite confused. You say that direct communication with Dr's Sanford or Wieland could be hearsay but what I write isn't.

You claim you were once a Christian and I consider that a lie. Prove it to me!

You claim you are now a more moral person. Define 'moral.'

Peter said...

John,

I like how you make a point of Hitler being an atheist and don't back up your claim while boasting about reading Mein Kampf. LOL, I don't think you ever opened that book. Yet you ask me to back up my claim. Now obviously this is not hypocrisy...


Sam Drucker,

You said:
"real estate renters because credit ratings are accumulated from 'testimonies' of payment record."
Obviously you are equivocating by using quotes (naughty Sam!). Payment records are accumulated event records, not personal testimonies.

You said:
"All testimonies are assessed against other available evidence."
Well obviously! Some have just more weight than others.

BTW. You don't understand what a straw man is. Please look it up.

I like how you want me to answer John's question but are not bothered that John, who brought up the topic, does not provide evidence for his claim. True heard mentality to protect your weak and true heard immunity for providing evidence.


Warwick,

The content of what you (or Dr Sanford) say decides if it is a hearsay or first hand account. Same with trustworthiness. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It about the content.

Warwick, when I was a Christian I was confused and angry like you, and I also denied it. I was living inside a Christian bubble and people outside the Christian bubble felt strange, I didn't understand them and I was rude to them. Once you step outside the Christian bubble you will see clearly how the world is; how Mormons live in their own bubble, how Muslims live in their own bubble and why people believe in unbelievable odd things like Golden Plates of Joseph Smith. Or why people don't believe in God(s).

I can't prove you anything about history. I can give you evidence, but over the blog comments it is not easy.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

more moral person ~ a person that does more good and less bad than before/someone else.

but I'm happy to take your definitions if you are not happy with those.

We all know what "more moral person" means. Asking for definition is probably not the right direction to take that.

Warwick, I have great hope for you. Just try to get out of the Christian bubble you live in and it will open your mind and you'll see the truth. Just try it, Warwick.

John said...

So, Peter, Hitler never said what you reckon he said. In fact it was someone else i.e. a testimony. According to your own dictum, testimonies are worthless. So doesn't that leave egg on your face?

I guess that is why you refused to divulge your source - you knew you had made a silly comment.

sam drucker said...

Peter, since your subjective and little supported assertion "Personal testimony is the worst possible evidence of anything." you have obfuscated in the face of correction. Personal testimony is widely used in society thus indicating worth.

You can go on denying the obvious but truth demands that after this post I be brief in dismissal - a law of conservation.

The issue of the straw man accusation remains because you misrepresented my position in the debate and criticised me (and others) on that misrepresentation.

Care to answer John's question or are you going to keep running away from demonstrating the accuracy of your assertion?

On another issue, I have been patient with your spelling and grammar errors though it does tax the mind to work out just what you are trying to say at times. However, your last comment does require question. Do you mean "heard" (as recorded twice) or do you mean "herd"?

Sam Drucker

Peter said...

John,

So, John, Hitler never was what you reckon he was (He was actually a creationist Christian like you). I guess you need to go buy Mein Kampf now. So doesn't that leave egg on your face?

I guess that is why you refused to divulge the source of the claim that you started this discussion - you knew you had made a silly comment.


Sam Drucker,

Of course personal testimony is widely used in society thus indicating worth. That's not the point. Just show me an example where personal testimony triumphs independent or unbiased info source.

Re straw man: I asked you a question "Let me guess... Is that right?" So my description of you is either true, partly true (incomplete) or false. You should have answered my question. Calling it a straw man shows that you don't understand when and how to use a straw man fallacy.

I like how you still want me to answer John's question but are not bothered that John, who brought up the topic, does not provide evidence for his claim. You still don't understand who needs to provide the evidence.

You are right about spelling and grammar errors (even spell checker does not save me from the heard/herd issue). My writing is not great, so sorry about taxing your mind. To be honest my writing is not much better on my native language.


Sorry guys, this discussion is not going anywhere so let's wrap it up. Warwick, my thoughts are with you. You will find your way out.

sam drucker said...

Peter said:

"Of course personal testimony is widely used in society thus indicating worth."

That admission is a far cry from from your early assertions. Honesty at last!

Peter said:

Just show me an example where personal testimony triumphs independent or unbiased info source."

Something is missing in that for it to make sense.

Peter said:

Calling it a straw man shows that you don't understand when and how to use a straw man fallacy."

You used the fallacy, I rightly called it as such because you had introduced a misrepresentation of my (and others) position in the debate and tackled that rather than the issue at hand.

Peter, in debate you made an assertion about Hitler. John called you to justify your assertion yet you consistently fail to do so. Debate lost on that and other points.

Peter, you said you were once a Christian. Would you be kind enough to define a Christian and how that was characteristic of your former self?

Sam Drucker

Warwick said...

Peter, you wrote "The content of what you (or Dr Sanford) say decides if it is a hearsay or first hand account."

What? If Dr's Wieland or Sandford spoke to you or wrote to you what they say to you is possibly hearsay?

Peter if you are representative of your "bubble" it makes even less sense than when I left it, all those years ago!

It appears you are saying you cannot prove you were ever a Christian. I am happy with what you may call your best evidence. Maybe while you are at it define 'Christian.' Maybe also you could supply the name and contact details of your ex-pastor, for some secondary confirmation.

Over to you.

Considering the odd things you promote and believe I asked you to define 'moral.' Apparently you cannot. The idea that everyone knows what 'moral' means is incorrect and naive . What does it mean to you?

Peter said...

Sam Drucker

You don't seem to want to understand what I write. I haven't changed my position regarding "personal testimony" so why are you calling "honesty"? Independent or unbiased info source is considered more trustworthy than personal testimony.

You still don't get the difference of straw man and a question, however no point arguing about that anymore.

In this debate John made first the assertions about Hitlerism and Hitler. If he wants to progress that subject he needs to first back up his original claim. Calling debate won or lost is just childish.

I don't really want to start arguing about definitions "Christian". That discussion never goes anywhere.


Warwick,

You asked:
"What? If Dr's Wieland or Sandford spoke to you or wrote to you what they say to you is possibly hearsay?"
Yes, Warwick. If they tell me that they have a bicycle it is a firsthand info. If they tell me that they have heard that Warwick has a bicycle it is hearsay. So it depends...

Warwick, you were never an atheist. Come out of the bubble to the good side. The view is beautiful.

I don't really want to start arguing about definitions ("Christian", "moral") as you are not happy with dictionary type or common usage type of definition (I thought moral law was written on our hearts). If you want to have a discussion about morals how about you post a new blog post where you define terms, set the scene and narrow the scope of moral discussion. This would save a lot of back and forth.

I don't think I should share my personal or ex-pastor's details, and I doubt my ex-pastor speaks much English.

Warwick said...

Peter, as you know my comments regarding Dr's Sanford and Wieland were delivered in the context of me providing you their email addresses, so you could contact them to discover if they had indeed previously been atheists. Still following?

If they were to state, directly to you, that they had previously been atheists would this still be hearsay? Still with me Peter?

What do you say?

You are correct that I was never a signed up atheist but did not believe there was a god, other than in some philosophical way. I was also a passionate antiChristian activist, just like Sai-Chung, the exAtheist, now Christian pastor.

No you used the word 'moral' and you being an atheist I wondered what you meant by this. My question, your answer!

What language does your exPastor speak? Just give me the details and I will write in that language. Bit of a problem if it is Urdu though.

sam drucker said...

I'll leave it to readers to evaluate past debate on this blog.

Peter, a couple of times you have said that you were once a Christian. It would be helpful to know what you believed about yourself, what you believed a Christian was and how the two fitted together.

Sam Drucker

Warwick said...

Peter's behaviour here is typical of atheists I have encountered.

He was unwilling to believe what he called hearsay. However when I offered to supply the email addresses for Dr's Wieland and Sanford, to receive first-hand verification, bolted.

Likewise he made the unsubstantiated claim that he was once a Christian. Having caught a dose of scepticism from him I asked for his exPastors details so as to confirm his claim. See the hypocrisy? I offer the email addresses Dr's Wieland and Sanford and he hides behind a story "I doubt my ex-pastor speaks much English." All he had to do was tell me what language his exPastor speaks and I am sure I or someone I know could write in that language.

Things became to hot for him and he hit the road, vamoosed, scarpered, and went AWOL!

sam drucker said...

Warwick, sadly the pattern is constant with Peter. He hates the thought of being left on the Atheist 'shelf' as one by one there are departures to Theism.

Peter's response is spoil and consistency of argument is therefore expendable.

Sam Drucker

Warwick said...

Sam, on another site up bobbed someone with the imaginative title of 'Atheist.' He waded into the argument with great confidence resorting to ridicule of we poor ignorant Christians. He told us only morons will not accept microbe-to-man evolution as fact. The interesting thing is that when challenged he couldn't come up with one 'fact' to support his belief. Another blogger challenged Atheist 17 times regarding just one fact but alas and alack Atheist was unable to supply one. Did this cause him to pause, was he in any way deterred, did lack of proof cause him to think again? Did his ignorance lead to him accepting he believed in evolution by faith? Not at all, like the true bigot he is, he continued with his derision.

Interestingly like our little Pete he made out that we Christians were filled with anger.

Are they both reading from the same book?

sam drucker said...

Warwick, I expect so.

For many Atheists, their mode of dealing with Biblical Creationists is hysterical bluster. Reason is found to be lacking.

Sam Drucker