Daniel P. Barron

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit.

March 31, 2019

This log has been modified for spelling, formatting and offensive language.

mh_le: Who would be good to compare Popper to?
Daniel: Who is Popper?
mh_le: Karl.
Daniel: Who is that?
mh_le: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Daniel:

he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not.

That's not true. (Romans 1:20i)
nalkri: 'That's not true because a quote from the Bible disagrees with it.' isn't really much of an argument.
mh_le: I don't really [care] about what scripture says on, well, anything.
nalkri: It begs the question of many things, including the correctness of that particular scripture.
nalkri: .wik philosophy of science
nalpre: "Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
nalkri: Mh_le, that page has a few positions and holders thereof, which might be of use to you.
mh_le: Nalkri, thanks! :D
nalkri: I don't know enough of the subject to provide you with my own recommendations, but that might be a decent start. :)
mh_le: No problem. :)
nalkri: Daniel, if you wish to discuss religion in this channel it should be approached philosophically, not taken as doctrine.
Daniel: Colossians 2:

8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

nalkri: No, quoting scripture as an authority is not suitable here. Maybe you want ##apologetics.
Trashlord: There's such a channel? O_O
Daniel: It's empty.
nalkri: If someone joins it there will be. Okay, but this is a philosophy channel, not a religion or apologetics one. Especially if you're not going to make any actual arguments and just quote from texts.
Daniel:

nalkri: No, quoting scripture as an authority is not suitable here.

Is quoting anything as authority suitable? Isn't that a fallacy?ii
nalkri: I'm not sure what you mean, referring to texts either to examine their arguments or to show what thinkers think is fine though.
Daniel: So then that is what I'm doing when I quote the Bible.
nalkri: It's not what you were doing, you were claiming it was true because it was written.
Daniel: I'll try to use better wording next time.
nalkri: Try to use arguments.
amigojapan: Daniel was clearly saying that philosophy is evil.
nalkri: I don't take that from what they said at all to be honest.
Daniel: Not all philosophy. It's a warning to watch out for those who try to cheat with philosophy.
nalkri: Like deferring to purported revelation?
Trashlord: "Cheat"?
amigojapan: Daniel, we should also be careful of those who yet to cheat us using "scripture."
Trashlord: What do you mean by "cheat"? Like lie to us?
amigojapan: Trashlord, he is stuck with the word cheat cause the Bible says it that way.
nalkri: Let's not rake over quotes from scripture, we can wait for actual arguments to turn up and discuss those. :)
Daniel: Amigojapan, indeed, many false Christians use scripture falsely, to make arguments that are not true.
amigojapan: Daniel, why do you think any of scripture is valid?
Daniel: Because God made me believe it.
Trashlord: lol
nalkri: Unargued positions like this are exactly the kind of thing that have no place in a philosophy channel, we should all drop it now unless arguments are to be examined.
omonk: Cultural traditions and social pressure can make you accept to believe a lot of things. How do you know 'God' isn't your idea of humanity telling you to believe what they did?
Daniel: Omonk, because most people disagree with my beliefs.
nalkri:iii This topic is being dropped now, as it is not being handled as a philosophical one. Gotcha questions are not significantly more productive than the dogmatism they attempt to trip up.
amigojapan: Okay. Daniel, may I PMiv you?v
Daniel: Yes.
amigojapan: Thanks.

Despite most of the active users wanting to continue this discussion, we are forced into private message because an operator wants to discriminate against Christianity under the guise of "staying on topic." You see, it's perfectly valid to cite man-made texts that denigrate God, but not those "man-made"vi texts promoting Him. Let's see if it's possible to have a philosophical discussion about the Bible.

amigojapan: Hi.
Daniel: Hi.
amigojapan: So yeah, how would you know the God of the bible is real, and if he were how can you defend his actions in the Old testament?
Daniel: Everyone knows He is real according to Romans 1:20. And God is the one who says what is right and wrong, who are we to judge His actions?vii
amigojapan: Daniel, that is using the text, but the truth is that nobody really knows he is real, you don't actually know he is real. We are people reading text. We can judge a text. It is perfectly valid.
Daniel: You don't need the text to know it is real.
amigojapan: Okay, how then?
Daniel: The heavens declare the glory of God.viii
amigojapan: But not of the abrahamic god.
Daniel: Yes, Him.
amigojapan: Can't you do it without using the bible, that was also a bible quote.
Daniel: No, I can't. That would be the cheating I alluded to earlier.
amigojapan: No, you are chatting.
Daniel: I will only make arguments from scripture; anything else would be leaning on my own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5ix)
amigojapan: You are brainwashed, it is useless to talk with you until I am not talking to a book.
Daniel: Okay, well check out http://atruechurch.info/ if you like. I also have a blog http://danielpbarron.com/ - let me know if you have any questions.
amigojapan: Probably propaganda, I don't want to get brainwashed. But I will show you my homepage since you showed me yours.
Daniel: I'll check it out.
amigojapan: http://amigojapan.github.io/?q=Padow_family_storyx Anyway, as I expected, I am not talking to a person, I am talking to a walking bible. May be a complement for you, I don't know.
Daniel: It is, thank you.
amigojapan: Haha, okay. :) So you never plan on having any own ideas? Of your own, that are separate from the bible? That is pretty sad man.
Daniel: I have my own ideas on things that don't matter, like bitcoin.
amigojapan: How about your own ideas on things that matter? That is important for me.
Daniel: All that really matters is salvation. And the only way to discuss salvation is with the Bible.
amigojapan: Only if the bible is true. What if you're wrong about the bible and God?
Daniel: I don't know, but I'm not wrong. If I'm wrong, show me scripture to prove it.
amigojapan: Well, everyone is probably wrong, not only you, but me too, everyone makes mistakes. No, I can't disprove it using the propaganda that got you into it to begin with.
Daniel: Then you certainly can't disprove it by any other means.
amigojapan: Like I could possibly point you out some contradictions, or immoral things in scripture, but you already know this, you just wont awake from it.
Daniel: You cannot know what is immoral without scripture.
amigojapan: People managed very fine in other non christian cultures to come up with their own morals. Or at least ethics if you don't want to use the word "morals."
Daniel: So then one culture says "the Bible is wrong here" and another says "no, it is wrong here" and which one is correct?
amigojapan: No no, I am just saying that other cultures developed "don't kill" and "don't steal" on their own, without influence from Christians.
Daniel: But your point was that there is immorality in the Bible, to which I asked, how can you know what is moral without the Bible?
amigojapan: Because people have come up with ethics in non related cultures too.
Daniel: Yes, but different cultures can and do disagree on what is ethical; likewise they will disagree on where the Bible is wrong.
amigojapan: Alright, that is because ethics are not objective, they are subjective. Each person has their own view. Of course we will disagree.
Daniel: So then it is impossible to prove the Bible is wrong.
amigojapan: Of course it is impossible to prove the bible is wrong, cause you believe too many things like your God can do anything, how can we possibly disprove that? That does not mean we are wrong
Daniel: My authority is God who says morality is objective and that He defines it; your authority is yourself and you say morality is subjective.
amigojapan: No, your authority is still yourself, cause you are wrong about the bible. Christians often disagree on what is right and wrong, they argue all the time. This is proof that they are just being subjective.
Daniel: So at worst I'm just like you, and at best I'm correct to the extent that I will inherit eternal life; whereas from my position, you are at best just like me, and at worst going to eternal destruction in the lake of fire. False Christians disagree on what is right and wrong. Believers are of one mind,xi the mind of Christ.xii
amigojapan: I am not scared of silly threats. You are being dihonest if you claim all believers agree on what is right and wrong, I have seen it a lot.
Daniel: You have seen people who do not believe. If you had checked out my church's website, you would see that we believe most churches lead to hell and that most self-described Christians are not in the truth.
amigojapan: I have seen believers disagree, they debate each other for hours for as to what the bible actually means.
Daniel: If two disagree on scripture, one or both are going to hell.xiii
amigojapan: That is the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Daniel: It is not a fallacy, it is a fact from the Bible. Matthew 7:

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.

amigojapan: many churches claim to the the only one too.
Daniel: Matthew 7:

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

And it is not our claim that we are "the only one" - we don't know of any other churches in the truth, but they may exist. It is a fallacy to say "others say this one thing that you say, therefor you are wrong."
amigojapan: How do you propose to tell the true one from all the false ones?
Daniel: Compare what they say to what the Bible says.
Daniel: Acts 17:

11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

amigojapan: I don't have time to do that for every group that claims to have the truth.
Daniel: It doesn't usually take much time to find something false churches have wrong.
amigojapan: Not only that, but I don't believe the bible is the truth either.

May God save him.

  1. Romans 1:
    20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,


  2. Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic. When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject.

  3. Nalkri reveals at this point that she is an operator, as if it wasn't already painfully obvious. This particular network has the peculiar characteristic of encouraging operators to not wear the operator mode. I guess the justification is that people chat differently around operators, and therefor it's best to deceive them. Having been on IRC for over a decade, I know when someone is posturing to control the conversation, whether or not they have the insignia of power.
  4. "Private message."
  5. Most chat networks have this absurd rule that you shouldn't send "unsolicited" private messages.
  6. I get this criticism quite a bit -- that, "the Bible is just a man-made book from two millennia ago and therefore it is wrong because reasons."
  7. Romans 9:
    20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

  8. Psalm 19:
    1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
    And the firmament shows His handiwork.

  9. Proverbs 3:
    5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
    And lean not on your own understanding;

  10. This isn't "your" homepage. This is a page on github.
  11. 1 Peter 3:
    8 Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous;
  12. 1 Corinthians 2:
    16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.


  13. Darwin: That's a bit oversimplified. True believers will contend, but come to agreement. (John 8:47) Unbelievers will not agree with Scripture. (John 8:47) I think the qualifying word to your statement would be "sustained." Sustained doctrinal differences does not exist among true believers. (1 John 4:6)

2 Responses

  1. [...] article is a followup to a previous one. It has been modified for spelling and formatting, and has been reviewed by Darwin Fish. synaps3: [...]

  2. [...] is an example of "philosophy and empty deceit" and relying on one's own understanding. ↩John 5: 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who [...]

Leave a Reply

Your words may be altered or altogether purged in accordance with my preference to abstain from publishing statements that may be unnecessarily offensive to other readers. Your criticism is welcome. Your name and website are optional. Some HTML tags are allowed.