Dustin Kesselberg's Beliefs - His Very Own Thread

[PixyMisa]

I believe the Bible is inspired by the word of God, Yahweh, God of Abraham and Moses.

Okay...

I don't believe it's literal or to be taken literally, simply metaphorically

Right.

and I believe most instances of errors or contradictions arise from mistranslations into English.

"Most"? Certainly, there are numerous such errors, but there are two complete Genesis stories, just for one example, so saying "most" of the errors arose from mistranslations into English (when there are numerous English translations, many of them more accurate (if less elegant) than the KJV) is pushing things a bit.

We know the thing was edited together, and in the case of the New Testament we have detailed historical records of how it was done (and we have, for example, the Gospel of Judas, which somehow didn't make it in...)

So, what we know is:

Men wrote it.
Men edited it.
Men translated it.
Many candidate books were left out, for one reason or another.

The role of God in all of this is not apparent.

 

[PixyMisa]

This is incorrect. I'm very clear on the definitions of words I use, I quote the dictionary and explain my context throughly.

Yes. That's part of the problem.

That is completely inadequate.

Given the context of the previous discussion I was using "Proof" in the form synonymous with evidence.

No you weren't. You kept changing your mind.

He clearly objected and denied any such definition even though I provided clear links to the thesaurus showing that they meant the same thing in such a context. He believes "Proof" has only one definition and can mean only one thing in any context, which is false.

No. You kept changing your use of the word proof. That's the rest problem.

 

[l0rca]

I was a 'Strong Atheist' basically in relation to the God of Abraham. I denied any concept of such a God. Though my denial was based on faulty logic and emotion (as I suspect any atheists is),

You must have come to realize that the logic and emotion that lead you to atheism was faulty. What was your reasoning that there was no god, and how have you realized that reasoning false?

Also, while I have a good idea of what you mean by faulty logic, I'm not sure what 'faulty emotion' is. Further, if you're implying that there is 'proper emotion,' how might that significantly change one's mind, especially in regards to being rigorously logical (I assume that what you are now, if not faulty logical, is rigorously logical in your ideas about god, which from my perspective would require one to abandon a sense of emotion to decide on whether a god exists).

I accepted that I was a sinner and I asked for forgiveness from Jesus Christ. When I asked for forgiveness I actually meant it and it was not an act, at that moment I suddenly had a revelation and at that moment everything became clear to me, I was without doubt and felt invigorated through the grace of Jesus Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

Nice anecdote, but what I'm interested in more is your reasoning, not your spiritual feelings, and I'm especially not interested in how your spiritual feelings might be directing your reasoning -- indeed I hope that's not the case.

The reason I asked for a definition of Evangelism is because, from my understanding, and implication in that wiki article, Evangelists are commonly illogical, and hardly have a reputation for intelligent apologetics, let alone a strong grasp of atheist argument. You don't seem like one of those, so I had the feeling that you ally yourself with Evangelical Christianity with at least some reservations in its connotation.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes. That's the problem.

That is completely inadequate.

I'm vague yet clear?

No you weren't. You kept changing your mind.

Where did I do that?

No. You kept changing your use of the word proof. That's the problem.

Tell me where I changed my use of the word. Post the exact post and section of the post to show me where I did such a thing.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You must have come to realize that the logic and emotion that lead you to atheism was faulty. What was your reasoning that there was no god, and how have you realized that reasoning false?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84447

Also, while I have a good idea of what you mean by faulty logic, I'm not sure what 'faulty emotion' is. Further, if you're implying that there is 'proper emotion,' how might that significantly change one's mind, especially in regards to being rigorously logical (I assume that what you are now, if not fautly logical, is rigorously logical in your ideas about god).

I didn't mean to say "faulty emotion". Simply faulty logic, and emotion.

The reason I asked for a definition of Evangelism is because, from my understanding, and implication in that wiki article, Evangelists are commonly illogical, and hardly have a reputation for intelligent apologetics, let alone a strong grasp of atheist argument. You don't seem like one of those, so I had the feeling that you ally yourself with Evangelical Christianity with at least some reservations in its connotation.

Not sure exactly what you mean.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm vague yet clear?

Dictionary definitions are insufficient.

Where did I do that?

Every time you claimed that evidence did not suffice as proof.

If you say proof is the same thing as evidence, you can't turn around and change your mind.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dictionary definitions are insufficient.

How? That's absurd.

Every time you claimed that evidence did not suffice as proof.

Be more specific and provide quotes.

If you say proof is the same thing as evidence, you can't turn around and change your mind.

When did I do such a thing?

 

[l0rca]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84447

Sorry if you think it's rude, but I'm looking for something much more brief. Basically, I'd like you to write out what your logic was that god didn't exist, and, with what I guess would be obvious, point out what was illogical about your previous reasoning. I don't particularly care what your argument for god is; just what your argument against god was.

 

[athon]

Dustin rarely changes his usage of a word. He just has his own dictionary which differs to that of the rest of the world. He'll use a term which everybody assumes means one thing, and then he'll claim he is using it in some other context.

Dustin also has a habit of posting some claim, offering some article or abstract which indirectly and loosely relates to the claim (but offers nothing by way of evidence), then points at it for the rest of the thread as if he's offered irrefutable proof of what he's said.

Seriously, this toy is amusing to watch as he pretends to be intellectual, but you'll rapidly tire of his evasions and silliness as it gets a little repetitive after a few pages.

So, show us what you've got on this topic, Dustin ol' son. Floor's all yours.

Athon

 

[PixyMisa]

How? That's absurd.

Why is it absurd?

A dictionary defines words in terms of other words.

Logic, mathematics and science can produce conclusive results because words specific to those areas aren't defined in terms of other words.

What is one second?

Check a dictionary, and you will find that a second is

[SIZE=-1]1/60 of a minute; the basic unit of time adopted under the Systeme International d'Unites

[/SIZE]Ask a physicist, and he will tell you that a second is

[SIZE=-1]defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at zero kelvins

That's something you can measure, without ever knowing what any other unit of time might be. It's an operational definition. It tells you what a second does.

Dustin, when you were discussing pragmatism, you provided two completely distinct definitions, and claimed you were using one when you were using the other.

Nobody can ever be sure what you're talking about, because as far as we can tell, you don't know yourself.
[/SIZE]

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sorry if you think it's rude, but I'm looking for something much more brief. Basically, I'd like you to write out what your logic was that god didn't exist, and, with what I guess would be obvious, point out what was illogical about your previous reasoning. I don't particularly care at the moment what your argument for god is; just what your argument against god was.

My argument against God was that there was simply no evidence supporting the existence of a God and no valid reason to believe in the existence of a God. I had seen many arguments for the existence of a God and saw how many of them were faulty and concluded that I had 'seen all arguments for a god'. That the belief in God was historically known and could be explained through psychology, geography, economics, etc.

The flaws in such reasoning are multiple and include the fact that I was wrong about there not being evidence for a God or reason to believe in the existence of a God. I had not seen all of the theistic arguments. Etc.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin rarely changes his usage of a word. He just has his own dictionary which differs to that of the rest of the world. He'll use a term which everybody assumes means one thing, and then he'll claim he is using it in some other context.

Wrong. I provide links to the definitions of words I use whenever asked for a definition.

 

[noblecaboose]

exclusively*

I believe in democracy and equality of all races. I'm opposed to dictatorships, racism and totalitarianism of any kind. Though I do believe the government should pay money to various churches to further Christianity.

Thank you. I noticed that and fixed it right away.

Which government do you mean? "The government" is vague.

What do you mean by "various churches" which ones? Baptist? Catholic? Episcopalian? or just "Evangelical" churches? Do Mormons count? And why not Jewish temples or Muslim mosques? They worship the same "God of Abraham" as you do, do they get a piece of the pie?

What do you mean by furthering christianity? By funding the building of schools? Missions? More churches?

 

[PixyMisa]

So what was this reason?

We want to know, because it apparently convinced you, but nothing you have said has swayed anyone in the slightest.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why is it absurd?

A dictionary defines words in terms of other words.

Logic, mathematics and science can produce conclusive results because words specific to those areas aren't defined in terms of other words.

What is one second?

Check a dictionary, and you will find that a second is

ALL words in any language are defined in terms of other words. I challenge you to provide me one definition of any word that doesn't define it in terms of other words.

[/size]Ask a physicist, and he will tell you that a second is

That's something you can measure, without ever knowing what any other unit of time might be. It's an operational definition. It tells you what a second does.

No. This is an explanation of how the "second" is measured. It's still 1/60th of a second. Moreover, that also uses terms that must also be defined.

Dustin, when you were discussing pragmatism, you provided two completely distinct definitions, and claimed you were using one when you were using the other.

No I didn't. Both of my definitions agreed. One was simply shorter than the other.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Which government do you mean? "The government" is vague.

The government.

The people who collect your taxes and distribute them for numerous purposes.

What do you mean by "various churches" which ones? Baptist? Catholic? Episcopalian? or just "Evangelical" churches? Do Mormons count? And why not Jewish temples or Muslim mosques? They worship the same "God of Abraham" as you do, do they get a piece of the pie?

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

What do you mean by furthering christianity? By funding the building of schools? Missions? More churches?

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So what was this reason?

We want to know, because it apparently convinced you, but nothing you have said has swayed anyone in the slightest.

I already said I wasn't going to defend theism in this thread.

 

[PixyMisa]

ALL words in any language are defined in terms of other words. I challenge you to provide me one definition of any word that doesn't define it in terms of other words.

Already done.

No. This is an explanation of how the "second" is measured.

Nope. You're not measuring a second at all. You measure one transition, then multiply it out, and that's what we call a second.

Moreover, that also uses terms that must also be defined.

It does, but you will find that the definitions all end up as a combination of measurements and numbers, whereas none of yours ever do.

No I didn't. Both of my definitions agreed. One was simply shorter than the other.

Yes, I know you believe that. It is completely untrue.

 

[PixyMisa]

The government.

The people who collect your taxes and distribute them for numerous purposes.

Baptists, Evangelicals and that's it. Any protestant church. I'm not so sure about catholics though. Definitely not Muslims or Mormons. Not Jewish either unless they emphasize the importance of Jesus as lord and savior.

I see a teeny tiny First Amendment problem here. Anyone else?

All of the above. Teaching the doctrines of the bible. Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.

Ah.

Helping people who are vulnerable and then converting them.

Abducting innocents and brainwashing them into your cult. Charming.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Already done.

No you haven't.

Nope. You're not measuring a second at all. You measure one transition, then multiply it out, and that's what we call a second.

No measuring a second at all? But we need to measure something needed to get a second?

It does, but you will find that the definitions all end up as a combination of measurements and numbers, whereas none of yours ever do.

Perhaps because I'm not using mathematical terms...

Yes, I know you believe that. It is completely untrue.

Elaborate.