Monday, August 02, 2010

Quote of the Day: "A Religion That Is True Would Defeat Man's Most Detestable Foe" *UPDATED*

“... a religion that is true would be one that defeats death, man’s most detestable foe. Of all the religious leaders previously discussed, only one, Jesus of Nazareth, has conquered the Grim Reaper.” -- Francis Beckwith.

Update: The Ball Bounces welcomes the author of the quote, Francis Beckwith, who writes in the Comments: "Sheesh! I was only 23 years old when I published that comment. (I'm now 49). But, in defense of me, you have to read the paragraphs prior to it to see how I make the case for death's existential significance."

For the record, I still believe it."

And I think that any rational person who was told that a religion offered the remedy to his greatest needs, which include a) forgiveness for moral failure, and b) victory over the grave, would i) want this religion to be true, and ii) investigate it on the basis of i), i.e., with an open mind and heart.

Instead, we witness rather persons who take perverse delight in believing the opposite; persons who insist on there being no hope for life after death, who relish the belief that their death is their extinction, persons who take what can only be described as perverse delight in "defeating" its arguments.  This perversity of heart and mind is well described in the Bible.

Atheists themselves give us yet one more good reason to believe the Bible is the word of God.

28 comments:

xn--hrfn-woa said...

Again, an example of the logical fallacy of Begging the question.

kursk said...

Francis Beckwith has by now, no doubt, found out if that statement is true or not.

RkBall said...

Kursk: why do you say that?

RkBall said...

I am as sure and certain of the resurrection of Christ as any fact of existence.

jonathan said...

"I am as sure and certain of the resurrection of Christ as any fact of existence."

Just as sure as I am on the existence of the fairies that live under my garden.

RkBall said...

No, I am sure there is a huge difference in our epistemological certainties!

jonathan said...

"No, I am sure there is a huge difference in our epistemological certainties!"

But I'm positive their there. They maintain the beauty of my garden! I've never seen them, but I know they exist, so how is this different from your view!

RkBall said...

God's secret weapon. If you stick with me a bit, and are nice to me, I may reveal what this secret weapon is!

Of course, you could claim that you have a secret weapon too, but like fairies, you would be just making it up, wouldn't you?!

Would you be willing to die for your belief in your fairies?

jonathan said...

"God's secret weapon. If you stick with me a bit, and are nice to me, I may reveal what this secret weapon is!

Of course, you could claim that you have a secret weapon too, but like fairies, you would be just making it up, wouldn't you?!

Would you be willing to die for your belief in your fairies?"

But I don't need to know god's secret weapon. The fairies have explained to me through their mysterious ways that their ways are THE ways and that any other ways are fallsities. You can't disprove my fairies, because they exist outside of this realm. I do have a special relationship with them though, but you have to believe in them and have faith in them, even though common sense says otherwise.

Why YES, I would be willing to die for them, but I know that they have a special mission for me so I can't die just yet, I just have to patiently wait!

RkBall said...

I gotta tell ya, Jonathan, your fairies are getting pretty interesting. If I come over, will you be our leader?!

RkBall said...

Did you tell me where you live? I forget. Iowa?

jonathan said...

Well there is no leader per se. Each individual who believes in fairies has their individual ideas on what the fairies want or what they represent, we really can't come to a concise answer. The fairy book we have is also sometimes vague and allows people to misbelieve something that may or maynot be in the book at all.

I live in Alabama.

RkBall said...

Ah. I've been to Birmingham, Selma, and Montgomery. I remember a big legislative building, and a ribs place near by. Great smoked ribs.

RkBall said...

I may have to ditch the fairies for the Great Smoked Rib. But, we can still be friends -- or can we??!!

jonathan said...

I live in Montgomery. I do like ribs but I prefer my meat fairly rare. I'm not sure if the fairies could coexist with the Great Smoked Rib, as I've heard (as I'm sure most of you in here have) that he's pretty mean and unsanitary; which is counterintuitive to the fairy belief system.

RkBall said...

Then you need to visit here.

http://www.bigtexan.com/

P@J said...

xn: Been away all weekend, just had a chance to check up on the happenings of the last few days.

You, my friend, are inspiring.

I tried a while ago to count all the logical fallacies on one of Ball's strange tirades into science denial, good to see someoen who can throw the same weight into historical discussions. You have brought the fun back to Ball.

You must be a fan of the apostles Steve, Jay and Bob (novellas)

xn--hrfn-woa said...

"I am as sure and certain of the resurrection of Christ as any fact of existence."

And no doubt I could find you a Muslim who would be equally "sure and certain" of God's revelation to Mohammed.

And no doubt I could find you a Hindu who would be equally "sure and certain" of the existence of Brahman.

And no doubt I could find you a Buddhist who would be equally "sure and certain" of the existence of reincarnation.

etc

etc

etc

Whilst I cannot be certain that any of these certainties have any underlying foundation, I can be certain that at most one of them is correct -- and I have no reason to believe that the one is you, Ricky.

(Good to see you back P@J -- glad you found the March of the Fallacies amusing.)

xn--hrfn-woa said...

P@J:

Not sure who "the apostles Steve, Jay and Bob" are.

The only Steves that I can bring to mind are Stephen Jay Gould & Professor Steve Steve (the former also being the only Jay).

The only Bobs I can bring to mind (apart from an uncle-by-marriage) are Bob of the Church of the Subgenius and 'Kate short for Bob' from Blackadder (II & IV).

RkBall said...

Miss a day, miss a lot.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

Actually, not "a lot" -- just the same ol' fallacies reheated.

Francis J. Beckwith said...

Sheesh! I was only 23 years old when I published that comment. (I'm now 49). But, in defense of me, you have to read the paragraphs prior to it to see how I make the case for death's existential significance.

For the record, I still believe it.

RkBall said...

As do I.

RkBall said...

I'm getting more interested in existential apologetics all the time.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

I take it that similar to archaeological apologetics involving to real archaeology, and evidential apologetics involving no real evidence, that existential apologetics involves no real existence? ;)

xn--hrfn-woa said...

Speaking of apologetics, weird and wonderful, Google News turned up this announcement of an amazing new book which purports to teach "the rules, procedures, and codes used by a technologically advanced overseer, or god, to write a program for Earth and its inhabitants".

Dialectics: God’s Self-disclosure through Intelligent Design

xn--hrfn-woa said...

"And I think that any rational person who was told that a religion offered the remedy to his greatest needs, which include a) forgiveness for moral failure, and b) victory over the grave, would i) want this religion to be true, and ii) investigate it on the basis of i), i.e., with an open mind and heart."

No Ricky, a RATIONAL person would (a) view with considerable scepticism a religion that deemed perfectly natural behaviour to be a "moral failure" & (b) notice that a number of religions claim mutually exclusive "victory over the grave".

(i) To believe in a religion because you want its promises to be true is incredibly naive. Following this through to its logical conclusion (as opposed to being simply a superficial argument for the religion), would clearly lead to believing whichever religion promised the most, irrespective of whether its promises are credible.

Additionally, this argument is simply the fallacy of an Appeal to Consequences.

(ii) Given a wide variety of unprovable, mutually-exclusive claims, it makes little sense to accept any of them. See the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations.

xn--hrfn-woa said...

Taking an even stronger view than the AfIR, if the Christian Trinitarian God exists, then why has he allowed the question of acceptance or rejection of him be muddied with so many alternative, and not-obviously-inferior, revelations?

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"