Lion IRC Cub

I know the title is misleading I’m having a debate over at the Atheist Foundation of Australia forums which is a classic example of sophistry and the Gish Gallop that the religious use in debates, at least this fellow can’t hide by picking and choosing the replies he makes to people on forums or blogs and has to deal with me in the limelight.

There has been no logic at all presented by Lion IRC for the affirmative, and appears the CLASSIC creationist/religionist approach of simply muddying the whole argument with half truths, word soup diatribes that don’t mean … well anything really that I can try and strain out of the mess. Since Lion IRC has chosen to stick to using jibes and ‘wit’, I’m going to rather just say the truth as I see it in the hope that this kicks him in the butt enough to respond to the actual debate, that’s me. I’ve been trying to be polite and on topic with no fluff out of some mis-placed respect for my opponent, but it is just not reciprocal, in fact from the start it has been totally disrespectful to myself, and the value I had put on him being able to at least put his position across and that he could actually defend it to some extent. how wrong I was. it’s like he hasn’t thought about the logic of his position AT ALL.

I think Lion IRC thinks this is a joke. Which isn’t so good since he is right out there in the limelight, representing his position on his core concepts of his god.

Maybe I was not too far wrong with the Gish Gallop, as he hasn’t in his first 2 large posts raised any real logic. There is plenty of big words, long sentences that meander around to appear as though something of importance, backed by ‘red references of note’, looping attempt at some kind of failed sophistry .. but nothing I have put forward in regard logic and actually approaching the topic of the debate. He seems to be winding slowly around trying to head in the direction of where he started, trying to argue that an omniscient god doesn’t have to know everything.

It’s like watching some bad actor playing Ceasar on stage giving some kinda speach, prancing around and it’s really hard to understand what they are saying as it’s heavy Shakespearean. But they think they are on top of the world. It’s kinda embaressing to be honest.

You can read the full debate here as it stands so far.

My basic argument that the theist Lion IRC has avoided :

1/ An omniscient being knows all future and past facts, including all possibilities and experiences any of those possibilities could have.

2/ This means these facts are unchangable as the omniscient being already knows that they would change it and to what, there is no way these facts were not known.

3/ The result is the existence of this being would be immutable, unchangable. This being would be powerless to change the future as it already knows what it would change, it knows EVERYTHING.

4/ The only way it could change the immutable knowledge it has of the future would to not be omniscient.

5/ But not being able to change the future, would mean that this being was not omnipotent.

check out some classic comments from Lion IRC during the debate :

Likewise, my case necessarily includes proofs that my opponent’s position is illogical

I’m still waiting on this, I’ve asked a few times now and he just avoids it like the plague.

When God says, “I don’t know what I am going to do tomorrow He is telling the truth.

Lion IRC clearly refuting his argument by defining his god as not knowing something. ie: what he is going to do tomorrow. a total contradiction.

How the hell can an Omnipotent Being NOT possess all knowledge?

My FAVOURITE Lion IRC again showing that an Omnipotent god can’t do something. He refutes himself in one sentence, the pinnacle point that his post led up too.. a total contradiction.

Gary Ablett Snr. Picture: Mike Keating Source: Herald Sun

What a shocker Gary Ablett Snrs  ‘news’ piece in the Herald Sun is.

Chock full of idiocy and incorrect information, the same old creationist canards, specifically ones such as the peanut butter argument which are a standing joke on the internet up there with the banana claims. I won’t go into an in depth breakdown as it is just too painful. So much of the information regarding the stupidity of his claims can be found via a simple google search.

Interestingly however, it appears it is listed under opinion:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/

Note however that the other opinion articles start with the above url, except for that one, which has /news/

I think it has been moved after being initially posted, and I also notice that ‘opinion’ articles allow discussion, news articles do not.

Interesting, one could be led to believe it has been created as a news article specifically to avoid discussion.

UPDATE: It looks like discussions have been enabled on the article, oh the stupid, it burns!

If you missed the program you can see it here.

This is the same man that said “A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don’t support this.” How’s that for reasoned logic? (You can also see a list of senators that voted for discrimination over at Blogotariat.com)

Dawkins seemed to get the religious folk in a bit of a huff with this comment :

The New Testament – you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn’t think of a better way to forgive humanity’s sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?

I agree wholeheartedly in Dawkins opinion, I would however of cut to the quick and said something along the lines of “It’s not much of a sacrifice to send yourself to suffer a couple of days pain, as a supreme being, knowing you are going to be raised again to spend eternity as a ruler in heaven”.

Anyway this got Julie Bishop a bit riled then Tony Burke jumped on the bandwagon both claiming ‘being ridiculed’, but anyway read for yourself, let’s follow what happened next reproduced here for your convenience :

JULIE BISHOP: No, I’m saying that what disturbs me about this debate and we see it often is that there are extremes. And whenever I see extremes I’m concerned.

RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul’s view, which is accepted by Christianity. That’s why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity’s sins. If it’s extreme, it’s not me that’s being extreme, it’s the new testament that’s being extreme.

He is very right there, Dawkins did not ridicule religion, he outright said his view that the notion embroiled in the christian doctrine is depraved. What kind of moral teaching is it to have someone tortured and executed for forgiveness of sins? It’s a horrible notion, totally lacking moralistic basis and you would think a supreme being that was omni-benevolent by it’s very nature would and could not do such a thing. Why not just forgive them? Why go through a process so .. depraved, as that?

TONY JONES: No, well, I’m going to jump in here, because is that not a story of sacrifice and therefore has something admirable attached to it which is the opposite of what you suggested?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Do you think it’s admirable? You think it’s admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity?

TONY JONES: That is the Christian view obviously.

RICHARD DAWKINS: That is the Christian view. If you think that’s admirable, you can keep it.

Indeed. Nothing said here other than his opinion on the claims, for which he was directly asked if he thought it was admirable, of course he does not, either do I.

TONY JONES: Okay. Tony Burke, first of all, quickly?

TONY BURKE: I don’t think your ridicule of people’s faith is much better than what you’re criticising. I really don’t.

RICHARD DAWKINS: But I just stated it. I didn’t ridicule it. I simply stated it.

AHA! that little gem of the religious lately, anything that goes against their concepts is ridicule. He asked a question which contained a clear representation of his impressions of the concepts.

Let’s look at the dictionary definition :

n. Ridicule
Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing: “I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon” (Dorothy Parker).
tr.v. rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing, rid·i·cules
To expose to ridicule; make fun of.
[French, from Latin rdiculum, joke, from neuter of rdiculus, laughable; see ridiculous.]

Tony has taken Richard’s opinion after direct questions, because they differ wildly from his as ridicule. This is just simply wrong. Dawkins was not at all trying to make a joke about it.

TONY BURKE: No. No. No. No. Sorry, if you go back over the words you used, once you’re stating it you did then ridicule it. You did. And if you want to look at the challenges and the conflicts and making a community around the world work together, then the level of respect that so many religions have not shown for each other absolutely needs to be lifted and your level of respect and tolerance could probably be a bit better too.

Well there you go, really his comments are about this :

“What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

That’s opinion on your claims Tony Burke, not ridicule. The way you deal with starfk difference over your opinion says a lot for how you actually view your opinion held. If you have to call it ridicule you obviously feel that there must be something underlying your concept that lends itself to that. This does not mean Dawkins actually did it. You just perceive it that way.

Would you say the same thing if we switch the topic?

“You think blah blah should happen with regard the boat people! What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

Would you then turn to another in political belief, and say they are ridiculing your position? Would it be ridicule? No. It is vastly differing opinion get over it.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Let me answer that. Let me answer that. I did not more than state the Christian doctrine and Tony then said, “That is the Christian doctrine. Isn’t it admirable.” People said, “Yes, it’s admirable.” So how is it disrespectful if I simply state what it is and half the audience think it’s admirable? What’s disrespectful about stating it?

TONY BURKE: Press rewind, hear your own words. You have changed them.

TONY JONES: Okay.

RICHARD DAWKINS: I have not.

Tony Burke that was a lie, he didn’t change the words, he didn’t ridicule, he just didn’t realise that you actually can’t deal with a difference of opinion when it comes to religious belief.

Anyway, I leave you with Julie Bishops DEATH STARE at someone speaking in the audience.

Julie Bishop Death Stare

For example Vegemite has gone Halal.

Here’s a list of organisations accredited by the Halal Certification Authority in Australia :

* ALLIED MILLS AUSTRALIA
* ASIAN FOODS AUSTRALIA
* AUSTRALIAN BAKELS
* BALLANTYNE FOODS
* BAYVIEW SEAFOODS
* BEGA
* BIRCH AND WAITE FOODS
* BUNDABERG SUGAR
* CADBURY SCHWEPPES
* COGNIS AUSTRALIA
* COOPERS SOUTH AUSTRALIA
* COPPERPOT DIPS AND PATE
* DAVINCI GOURMET FLAVOURED SYRUPS
* FALWASSER
* FERMEX
* GOLDEN NORTH
* GOODMAN FIELDER
* GOURMET CHEF FOODS
* JEWEL OF INDIA ENTERPRISES
* KEITH HARRIS AND COMPANY
* LAKELANDS OLIVES
* MANILDRA HARWOOD SUGARS
* MASSEL INTERNATIONAL
* MOSSLEE
* OLSSON INDUSTRIES
* PACIFIC SALT
* PASTILLA NASH
* PATON’S MACADAMIAS
* PEANUT COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA
* SABRANDS (SUNRAYSIA)
* SANITARIUM
* SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES
* SERENDIPITY ICE CREAM
* SNOW COFECTIONERY
* SWEET WILLIAM
* THE REAL MCCOY SNACKFOOD COMPANY
* WHOLESOME BAKE
* WRIGLEY

I was wondering if christians avoided these products? I mean Cadbury chocolate is in there!

The first rule in Halal is that the name of Allah is placed over the animal/food as a blessing of sacrifice offered to Allah, effectively eating of these products is eating of food offered to idols.

Stuff like 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 ?

18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?
19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?