Cyclops Kitty redux / Know thy enemies
Francois Tremblay Permalink
28 comments
Here is a drawing inspired by Cyclops Kitty, on 7 Deadly Sinners :
Someone should make this into an atheist button. We should start a "Cyclops Kitty, mascot of atheism" campaign. Seriously.
Know thy enemies : The 50 Most Influential Christians in America. Surprisingly, Shrub only finished eigth. First place is "T.D. Jakes", whose name sounds more like a sitcom actor than a Christian evangelist. He is the best Christian in America because he builds bigger and shinier churches and religious schools than anyone else. Congrats T.D. for your contribution to the degeneration of America !
Other notables in this gallery of scammers and criminals : Billy Graham (#3), Rick Warren, author or "The Purpose-Driven Life" (#4), Paul Crouch (#6), James Dobson (#9), Benny Hinn (#30), Creflo Dollar (#36), Sean Hannity (#40), the Pope (#44), Rick Santorum (#46) and Phil McGraw (#50).
Post a Comment
28 Comments:
Just gross is all I can say. It's a line-up of intellectual felons and swindlers. One of 'em is even named "Swindoll."
As for the kitten, that was rather sad.
Yeah, I should really go there one Sunday to see if it's as crazy as it looks on TV.
I just saw this over on Christian Ryan Wentzel's blog. In a post titled Individualism, the Church, and the Family, a commentator made the following statment:
"One of the frustrating things during my time in youth ministry was that we 'have' the kids for such short, chaotic periods of the week. The rest of the time they are in their family or social networks."
These are truly sick and dangerous people. It's clear this guy thinks of other people's children as some kind of commodity which is his to indoctrinate. Heaven forbid that we allow children to spend time in their family and "social networks."
Truly horrific!
Bahnsenburner-
Perhaps reading is not your strong suit. If you would have read the rest of the post you would have seen that he is making the same point that you just did. In fact Ryan says the same thing in the very next comment. You pulled out just enough to him look like some sort of brainwasher, can anyone say "Straw man"?
Street apologist,
Don't you know, Bahnsen Burner can only make people look bad by misrepresenting them, as my series has been demonstrating.
Oh, and Dawson, post your "treatment" of the problem of universals yet?
Apparently Bahnsenburner also believes in Heaven. As his post clearly indicates.
http://thegooseiscooked.blogspot.com
streetapologist-
Dawson wasn't critiquing Ryan, he was critiquing the commentator.
Perhaps reading isn't your strong suit, either.
Thank you, Zach. You're right. I was quoting someone by the name of Jonathan Hallsted, not Ryan himself. As for Ryan, he says in his response to Hallsted that he agrees with him.
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
oh my I am sorry....no wait a minute if you would please just read the entire comment by the "commentator" you would see as I pointed out that he is lamenting that "healthy youth groups kids come from healthy families" and further he laments that he thinks that there needs to be some way to integrate youth groups and family functions.
Again, you lifted out the part that paints this guy as wanting to take kids away from his/her family and indoctrinate them. The commentator is saying just the opposite, he is wanting to integrate the two. My original criticism stands. You have inserted a logical fallacy known as poisoning the well.
Bethrick laments,
"Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!"
Thank you for allowing me to show the world how immoral your Objectivist system is. Your position says that, morality is subjective and no human beings are obligated to follow any moral codes (i.e., raping a 4 yr old girl is not objectively wrong and a molester is not obligated to not-molest children! Sick as it is, that's your position.
Now, you may say that I'm misrepresenting you, but I cannot be. You see, *atheist* Keith Augustine writes,
"It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/moral.html
So, we see that your position is that child molesters are not doing anything objectively wrong or immoral. If someone, God forbid!, raped your wife, that would not be objectively wrong.
Oh, you say that I'm misrepresenting your position. Well, look in the mirror:
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
Shall I go on?
streetapologist-
Jonathan's later remarks don't contradict what Dawson quoted. His complaint is that the amount of time spent in youth groups is usually minimal when compared to the amount of time they are able to spend with their families/friends. He then posits that kids who come from healthy (whatever this means) families tend to be good participants in youth group. His conclusion is that, instead of fostering a more effective youth group environment, he should be allowed to take over the time kids spend with their friends and family. This is exactly the kind of predatory approach to evangelism that Dawson was criticising.
Yes, it's true that Ryan agreed with him in the next comment, but that's immaterial. Jonathan is the one who proposed the idea, and so that's who Dawson targeted for criticism.
Paul-
Keith Augustine's position is immoral according to what objective standard?
Irony abounds.
Zach,
You missed my point. My point was that Dawson's position says it's not wrong to rape little girls. Is that a misrepresentation of his (and your) position? If it is then it looks like, "Even when we quote people from your side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!"
Second, his position is immoral according to the universal and unchanging law of God.
Paul-
You missed my point, too, it seems.
Keith's argument is that there is no objective or transcendent source that can be used as a moral standard. Thus, no act is objectively moral or immoral.
Objectively, acts are neither wrong nor right. You may enjoy stringing up a strawman that says that rape isn't wrong, but without qualifying that in the general context of the moral system, you're intending the reader to draw the conclusion that rape is moral. But that's an incorrect conclusion.
Importantly, denying an objective standard doesn't mean that one can't decide on a subjective standard- i.e., just because one denies objective morality doesn't mean that one can't make moral statements and be inconsistent.
"Objectively, acts are neither wrong nor right."
Ayn fucking Rand, Zach, have you read any entry I've written in the past three months ?
Zach,
Not to be rude, but what you're getting at doesn't deal with my point, so I'll try to say it clearer:
Augustine's position isn't Bethrick's position but I said Augustine's position was Bethrick's position. This entails a misrepresentation of Bethrick's position. But(!), I argued, "Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!"
You see, my point has nothing to do with what you're bringing up.
We can debate what you're bringing up another time, if you'd like. But it goes beyond the scope of what I've been saying. I think you'll be forced to agree.
Franc-
I know, I was just summarizing Keith Augustine.
Paul-
So... In order to prove that Dawson was wrong you proved that he was right? Is this the kind of logic that Christianity leads to?
Or is this another attempt at humor?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
How did I do that, Zach?
Stick with my point.
Zach, do you think it is objectively moraly wrong to molest children? Of course you do. But what if I said your position was that it was not objectively wrong? Would this be a misrepresentation? Of course it would. So, you end up saying, "Even when we quote people from your side, you say we're misrepresenting you. Amazing!"
After you conceed, then we can proceed to dismember your other point.
Phew ! I thought you were serious. You gave me a scare there.
Francois,
That's exactly how I react when I find out someone was not spouting heretical doctrine.
I understand the fear of loosing a member of the visible church.
It's funny that we're not that far apart. We are both religious in how we hold our beliefs and treat heretics.
We both are trying to escape something. You escape reason and I escape wrath.
Paul-
Don't lose the context here. Dawson quoted Jonathan, and streetapologist called strawman. Dawson and I confirmed the quote, and Dawson complained that even though he had directly quoted Jonathan, streetapologist had accused him of misrepresenting the quote. So, Dawson's thesis is, quoting a Christian word for word is not sufficient for other Christians to not accuse him of misrepresentation.
For some reason, you hypothesized a scenario where you quoted another atheist, Keith Augustine, and concluded that Augustine's views must be Dawson's. You then claimed that this situation was the same as that which Dawson had proposed.
I can only guess that you misunderstood Dawson's complaint. Dawson was complaining that even if he quotes Christian A, then Christian B will come along and say that Christian A has been misrepresented. You must have thought that he meant that if he quotes Christian A, Christian B will come along and say that Christian A's quote doesn't apply to Christian B, and thus Christian B has been misrepresented.
Then, true to form, you tried to capitalize on that misunderstanding, with what I hope is an attempt at humor.
It's no big deal, and I find it kind of funny that you've stubbornly pushed something so petty this far, but maybe you just want to drop this and focus on something more important.
Zach,
You know very well that atheists and evolutionists say that we are misrepresenting them when we quote their silly claims that evolution is a theory and not proven, or that life arose from chance, or that we can't trust our brians, etc.
They say that we are misrepresnting them. I can cite you the sources, if you want. But, if Dawson points stand then if I quote them "word for word" then I somehow can't be misrepresenting them.
Furthermore, dawson's quote can be translated from:
Even when we quote people from their side, they say we're misrepresenting them. Amazing!
to
Even when we quote people from their side, Christians say we're misrepresenting Christians.
This reading is best because Dawson already knows that we say that he misrepresents the christians he quotes (as my series on him demonstartes). If he already knows this, then why would it be amazing.
So, I can say, "even when we quote people from their own side, atheists say we're misrepresenting atheists. if this isn't correct then dawson is guilty of misplaced hyperbole.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zach,
Thanks for clarifying the issue to streetapologist. I can only suppose he is satisfied with your explanation, which was spot on.
Paul: "You know very well that atheists and evolutionists say that we are misrepresenting them when we quote their silly claims that evolution is a theory and not proven, or that life arose from chance, or that we can't trust our brians, etc. They say that we are misrepresnting them. I can cite you the sources, if you want."
I don't think you're misrepresenting anyone simply by *quoting* what someone else says (so long as you're not mutilating their words). The misrepresentation comes in at two places (perhaps more, but these two I have in mind specifically):
1. when a person revises what is said to say something different than what is said. For instance, one guy in the Unchained forums interpreted evolution as consisting of the idea that "man is no more than biological vomit frought from a speck of dust no bigger than a period in this paragraph." That is not a quote from any biologist that I know of, and the individual espousing this "understanding" of evolution did not attribute it to any experts on the matter. So this would qualify as outright misrepresentation.
2. a person assumes that one speaker is speaking for others for no good reason. For instance, if you quote a scientist who says that "life arose from chance" (and I'm not doubting that you could), and suppose that this view is shared by all who think that the various species evolved by means of natural selection affirm accordingly, then that could also be a form of misrepresenting someone. For one, I think life "arose" from existence (not from something called "chance"). Also, the means by which this happened is biological causality, which we do observe throughout our lives. When someone says that "life arose by chance" I think he's essentially saying that he doesn't know the specifics of how this happened (otherwise he might be able to state them). I don't think 'chance' is a concept that refers to some metaphysical quality or phenomenon. Rather, it is an epistemological concept in that it refers to causal processes which are as yet not understood or only vaguely implicated. If "chance" is a problem for the evolutionist, however, then it's an even bigger problem for the theist since it's "just by chance" that the Christian god was pleased to create man with two arms instead of 14 or 22.
I don't think I've misrepresented Hallsted because I did not mutilate his statement when I quoted him. Also, I do not misrepresent other Christians by assuming he speaks for them since Christians are said to "think God's thoughts after Him," which must mean they're all "of one accord" with each other and with what they're god wants them to think.
Hope that helps!
Regards,
Dawson
Paul-
How did this become about evolution? Calm down, buddy- you're starting to lose coherence here. Flinging up tangents to confuse the issue isn't helping you out much.
I find it really funny that you have to "translate" Dawson's complaint from the particular to the general to save face. Where can I go to learn how to translate English into English, please?
<< Home