The following discussion took place due to my video What will the future think of Aron Ra?
A certain Humanist Apologetics commented
Love the edit job. Why didn’t you provide links to where you clipped these from? Or how about a breakdown of his flood videos and why they are wrong? Considering that the position of the exodus myth is mainstream while the position that the exodus happened is a populist position… What is the strongest piece of evidence for the exodus.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
One evidence is that it is recorded in the best attested volume of antiquity.
Humanist Apologetics
Alright much to unpack here. My conclusion is that the bible is a book just like any other book. I arrived at this conclusion because I tested it’s claims against the actual world. Thus no I did not begin with the conclusion I began with examination. I can provide a link as well and mine even has citations https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/modern-myth-all-but-11-verses-of-the-nt-could-be-constructed-from-the-writings-of-the-early-church-fathers/ Here is another link https://vridar.org/2016/04/04/little-white-lies-is-the-nt-best-attested-work-from-antiquity/ Further your reconstructed bible would have verse not found in the modern bible. If by the term attested you mean that it was copied a lot then… well no I won’t give even that much too you. Many copies does not the truth make, this is known as the ad populum fallacy. Perhaps we are using the term attested to mean different things so allow me to be explicitly clear. By the word attested I don’t simply mean that it was copied lots. I mean how much of it can be verified by external sources. The word I used there was verified. Not verified to have been said in the text. How much of the text can be corroborated? Can more than “yes there was a city by this name.” be verified? I want more than general events. Give me external verification of the exodus. Your strongest piece of evidence. The lie which you told is that the exodus myth is attested to. It is claimed by a book that was popularly copied. Attested: provide or serve as clear evidence of. The claim has been made by the old testament that the exodus happened. Now attest it. Now lets address your deflection because apparently you didn’t learn the last time you tried this on me. “how does your worldview provide a premise upon which to demand adherence to truth, logical and ethics—such as that you would be justified in condemning lying?” Because 1) existence exists 2) I exist 3) Systems of knowledge which can be tested and verified are better than those which cannot. That is how. However I was not in fact condemning your lie. I wish for you to tell more. I wish for you to tell many many more. I also wish for you to deflect. I wish for you to do all that you will. You sir are not my friend, neither are you my audience. Interesting side note. When I was a believer I actually attempted to reconstruct the bible using the church fathers. It was interesting indeed. Perhaps one of these days I will pick the project back up.
Humanist Apologetics commented again before I could reply, with
Ken Ammi I wrote: “Is genocide ever acceptable?” To which you responded: is a non-issue. I had intended this to be a public written debate. Instead I am just going to let that gem hang out there. I will however address one other thing first ” you just from “is” to “ought,” “. No I just from IF to THEN. I really cannot thank you enough for that gem. All else will be addressed in the other thread if you wish to continue it there. This is just too golden to spoil for the audience. I wrote: “Is genocide ever acceptable?” To which you responded: is a non-issue.
Ken Ammi
Friend, if anything is hanging out there it is the fact (which anyone can verify) that you are taking me out of context—to me no less: if I wrote something, you will not succeed in taking it out of context when you are writing a comment back to me.
Here is your manipulation of the facts, “I wrote: ‘Is genocide ever acceptable?’ To which you responded: is a non-issue.” Here are the facts: I wrote “how does your worldview provide a premise for truth, logic and ethics such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.? WITHOUT STARTING THERE then you asking “Is genocide ever acceptable?” IS A NON-ISSUE.”
So you fail by engaging the issue and you fail by sloppily manipulating facts.
Now, I am going to make the following comments here now since YouTube had not allowed it since it contains URLs so I just noticed that the system was asking me to review it and so I just approved it.
Friend, you most certainly did begin with a conclusion since your examination is based on truth, logic and ethics (at least, it is supposed to) so you begged, borrowed and stole those from my worldview since your worldview cannot provide them to you.
If you are just interested in posting links then, feel free: I also know how to copy and paste.
I am going to guess that by “Give me external verification of the exodus” you are going to purposefully ignore the most well attested ancient text and opt for what: for history written by Egyptians, or what?
But we are back to the issue of truth, logic and ethics since you refer to “The lie” which I allegedly told but you provide no premise upon which to condemn lying. But you say that you were “not in fact condemning your lie” which makes sense since you could not do so due to your worldview’s fundamental failures. And look where your worldview has left you: you cannot even condemn lying!
You do not seem to engage the ontological issue of epistemology since “1) existence exists 2) I exist 3) Systems of knowledge which can be tested and verified are better than those which cannot…” are secondary issues and are, as I noted, you simply jumping from “is” to “ought”: your worldview utterly fails to account for how and why 1) is the case, and for how and why 2) is the case, and for how and why 3) is the case. Thus, you have gained nothing but are merely making unfounded assertions.
Well, if you are not my friend than we need to change that.
Lastly, you can make the mere claim that you used to be a believer but such is not the case since “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19).
You see, when you have no premise for truth, logic and ethics you end up where you have ended up: displaying for all to see that you are not willing and/or able to engaged in a truthful, logical and ethical manner.
Humanist Apologetics
Which volume is that? And are you saying that we should believe something because it is written down? If that is the case then that gives me a totally different perspective on the Illiad.
Ken Ammi
Which volume is the best attested volume of antiquity? The Bible. I provided an exemplary chart here: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/destroyed-bible-%E2%80%93-how-reconstruct-bible-part-3
No, I am not saying that we should believe something because it is written down but by playing games as you are, you are about to destroy all history. So, the facts of the matter are that you asked “the strongest piece of evidence for the exodus” and I am directing you to a historical text and one that just so happens to be the best attested volume of antiquity.
Humanist Apologetics
You assume that you understand my objectives. I stated clearly where I am starting from. How does my worldview provide a premise for truth? Let us exercise the spirit of charity and say that what you wrote and my understanding of what you wrote were not the same. Let us do that and say further that because of my understanding of your question I thought that I provided what I believed to be a full and sufficient answer. Then friend shall we endeavor to correct this misunderstanding. “how does your worldview provide a premise for truth, logic and ethics such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.” Rewording show what I understand your question to mean. I shall here replace the words with the definition of the words. “how does your understanding of the world and the way it works provide a starting place for that which you can demonstrate, the basis for logic and the foundation for human interaction such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.” To which I respond with How does my understanding of the world and the way it works provide a starting place? Because existence exists. Allow me to clarify this statement because I apparently failed in the full communication of the concept last time. Existences exists, because exists exist it is what it is and things are what they are. How… ? Because I exist. How … because I know (believe) that I exist. How… I know (believe) that other thinking minds exist. How… Because Systems of knowledge (that which can be demonstrated) which can be dis-confirmed are better than those which can be only confirmed. These are my axiom’s the place from which I start. They are the minimal amount of assumptions that I am forced against my will to make because I have no other choice but to make them. So again I ask now that I have answered your question thus finishing one issue (namely how am I able to make condemnations based upon my worldview) I will ask my own question of you. Is genocide ever acceptable? [insert yes or no answer here] [Insert fuller explanation if necessary here]
Ken Ammi
Friend, I appreciate you wanting to set thing aright. Now, I am unsure that rewording and replacing is helpful since you end up answering a question that you asked yourself. But, so be it: I will go with it, at least for now.
I am afraid that you are not engaging issues of ontology and epistemology for which I cannot really blame you since your worldview fails before it even begins which is why you are still and only appealing to after the fact phenomena “Because existence exists” without any elucidation of how and why existence exists nor how and why it is the way it is.
Now, if I may reword and replace: where in your attempted elucidation you kept writing “How” you should have written that “assertion” followed by “further assertion” and more assertion until you are falling into the abyss which is the bottomless pit of assertions upon which your worldview is built: a baseless base.
But you are being consistent with your worldview which tells you that life, the universe and everything is the result of uncaused purposeless accidents.
Of course, if you are merely a temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism that means that your thoughts are merely the byproduct of random bio-chemical neural reactions and that you are just an ape pounding away at a keyboard which makes your whole endeavor of telling people that they are wrong because you are right into literally absurdity.
However, I have encountered this phenomena before from people who think that there is no objective meaning to life and so they attempt to fill the gap by concocting subjective meaning—as ultimately meaningless as it is guaranteed to be.
So yes, your axioms are “I exist…I know (believe)…I know (believe),” etc. Yet, it is myopic that such as the “minimal amount of assumptions that I am forced against my will to make because I have no other choice but to make them” since that is merely the result of the fact that your worldview fails before it even begins. Thus, you make assumptions based on what you have stolen from my worldview.
Thus, you have not even come close to answering about truth, logic or ethics and you did not even make an attempt at the portion about “such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.”
I will prove your failure to answer by answering your question with a question, “Is genocide ever acceptable?” You are asking me if it is ever acceptable for temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms to cause other temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms to cease being animated and turn into food for yet other temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms: how is that even a question on your worldview?
Humanist Apologetics
You concede to a reasonable set of axioms which I applaud you for. I actually thought this might break down into me repeating myself over and over again. Observations are just that observations not charges, I make it clear when I am making observations. *“But, so be it: I will go with it, at least for now. I am afraid that you are not engaging issues of ontology and epistemology for which I cannot really blame you since your worldview fails before it even begins which is why you are still and only appealing to after the fact phenomena “Because existence exists” without any elucidation of how and why existence exists nor how and why it is the way it is.” * I am uncertain as to if this statement is made from malice intent to deceive or ignorance (lack of information and or understanding). Using the principle of charity I will assume that the fallacies committed in the above quote were made from ignorance rather than malice. I will give the name of the fallacy and explain exactly how it was committed. This is an Argument from ignorance fallacy in particular this is the Ignoratio elenchi form which by definitino is:(irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. The question you asked was what basis? I have provided that basis. The fact that the basis has no power to explain itself is in fact irrelevant to the fact that I do have a basis. Further it is moving the goalpost by implication at the least. You do this by here implying that I need to justify my axioms. Justifying ones axioms is both absurd and impossible. By way of demonstration it would be as if I had asked you to explain how Yahweh came into being. There is also an implied question begging here specifically in the form of loaded language which is the use of emotionally evocative language to support a conclusion. Your use of “at least for now” implies that you have solved the problem you are accusing me of to the observer. (Observation not tu quoque as I am not making the charge but observing the tactic)The particular tactic here is the Obscurantist Tactic in which one implies they have solved a problem mutual to both parties but refuses elaboration. You are also Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. This time by invoking an indirect threat to appeal to the Nirvana fallacy in the future by using the words “For now”. Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. If this was not your intent you could have said “For the sake of the argument I will grant…” In the case of the Nirvana fallacy you go on to commit the Historical fallacy – a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result. This is done by assuming that I somehow need to account for an accounting. You are also committing incomplete comparison*– insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. If I am in error and there is a way for the account to account then it is not unreasonable and is in fact helpful if you demonstrate the way in which such a method may be accomplished. The incomplete comparison is part of the *Stacked Deck tactic. You haven’t actually committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. Yet. The last fallacy I will address is the Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to. Accidental or not by using the “at least for now” language you are attempting to distract the audience by promising a return to attempting to make me justify my axioms if the problem of defeating my argument becomes difficult. This is either going to be an internal critique or it is going to be an external critique. I am fine with either. However decide up front which it is going to be and state which it is so that I know and you are not moving the goalpost on me
Ken Ammi
I am going to attempt to begin narrowing this discussion down since it already takes me hours to reply to all of the comments I get and I cannot write entire essays to you chasing every rabbit down every hole.
I am afraid that you are missing the main point so I will simply lay it out: you doubled down on appealing to after the fact phenomena and not engaging in ontology and epistemology. You began with a conclusion and continue to do so thus, I am attempting to get you to take a step back.
The actual problem is that you are failing to note that your worldview fails before it even begins.
I am attempting to get you to see that as per your worldview it is a non sequitur for you to care what another accidentally and temporarily existing ape thinks.
Thus, the issue is that even if “is” “is” (such as “existence exists”) then, since you claim to merely be a temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms whose very thoughts (whose very concept of existence) is based on byproducts of random bio-chemical neural reactions then the problem you have is that even if “is” “is”/“existence exists” the reply can be as simple as: so what?
You are an ape attempting to get other apes to change their bio-chemistry because you “think” that your bio-chemistry is better than theirs.
Thus, you entire endeavor is absurd—at least on your worldview.
Humanist Apologetics
Good that last post was not fun for me either. Let me come straight to the rebuttal. Ontology is worthless without epistemology. Without epistemology you cannot even ask the question of ontology. To make it clear. I exist. That I know that I exist means I can know things. That I can know things means knowledge is possible. This is my starting point, this is your starting point, this is everyone’s starting point. Before you can say god exists you have to say you exist. My ontology is that matter and energy always existed and there was never a point at which it did not exist. If you try to push me on this I will ask you where your ontology for Yahweh is. You don’t get to have a double standard. That is the problem you are failing to note, and why your worldview fails. I did not begin with the conclusion. An axiom is not a conclusion. You are failing to grasp this. Axioms cannot be justified therefore they cannot be conclusions. I want to ask how you don’t understand this but that’s not the question I really want to know more than any other. First you claim that I believe in determinism then you claim that I believe in randomness. Please make up my mind for me and tell me what I believe. I cannot have it both ways, either things are random or they are determined. That I believe that consciousness is a product of biological processes does not mean I do not value it. This is the last time I will let you get away with this dirty language trick. The question is not where do I think it comes from, the question is do I value mind? Yes. Now I ask a forth time the question you absolutely do not want to answer at any cost. According to YOUR worldview. Is genocide ever acceptable? Yes or no. In mine the answer is no. It is not because I value my life and IF I value my life THEN I should “do not do unto others.”. Not IS OUGHT, but IF is THEN ought.
Ken Ammi
Friend, if your “ontology is that matter and energy always existed” then your ontology is faulty and lacking evidence. However, it is fascinating that in typical Atheist manner: you reject an eternal personality but accept an eternal non-personality.
Now, if my “worldview fails” then it does not matter since, on your view, we are just temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms whose random neural reactions are called thoughts. And that you “believe that consciousness is a product of biological processes does not mean I do not value it” is merely a subjective personal preference.
Thus, I have not been arguing with you about what an axiom is and is not—the issue of whether a particular thing that someone claims is an axiom or not is another issue.
And of course you began with a conclusion since you cannot simply say something like “I exist ergo, I demand evidence”: that is a world-class non sequitur. Now, if anyone is failing to grasp something it is you since you think that I “do not want to answer at any cost” whether on my worldview “Is genocide ever acceptable?” but you fail to grasp that even if you ask that the question be answered according to my worldview: your worldview provides no premise upon which to ask that, demand that I reply, condemn failing to answer or condemn genocide.
That you exist gets you nowhere even near the realm of dealing with these facts. On your worldview “It is not” because you beg, borrow and steal from mine. The failure of “IF is THEN ought” is that your “IF” is based on the subjective “I value my life.”
So, the reply to “I exist” by accident and temporarily therefore, I demand thus and such is: you exist, well that’s nice.
Humanist Apologetics
Your avoidance and hypocrisy are getting old.
Friend, if your “ontology is that god always always existed” then your ontology is faulty and lacking evidence. However, it is fascinating that in typical Theist manner: you reject an eternal energy and matter but accept an eternal personality.
Now, if my “worldview fails” then it does not matter since, on your view, we are just playthings of an eternal god and exist to stroke it’s narcissistic ego. And that you “believe that consciousness is a product of magical processes does not mean I do not value it” is merely a subjective personal preference.
Thus, I have not been arguing with you about what an axiom is and is not—the issue of whether a particular thing that someone claims is an axiom or not is another issue.
And of course you began with a conclusion since you cannot simply say something like “God exists, I demand evidence”: that is a world-class non sequitur. Now, if anyone is failing to grasp how hard you are avoid answering the question at any cost “Is genocide ever acceptable” all they need to do is look at the fact that this is the sixth time you have failed to answer the question. Because of course genocide is acceptable under your worldview and you are ashamed and embarrassed to admit that as you should be. You fail to grasp the point of this exercise, just as you have failed to answer the question.
Now again before I ask the question a seventh time. I have in fact repeatedly answer the question of my premise for ethical judgement. The fact that you do not like my answer does not mean that I have not provided one. The basis of my ethical judgement is the fact that I exist and that i wish to continue to existing, combined with cause and effect. This in no way borrows from your world view and in fact is in direct contradiction to your world view, given that a world which has magic is by definition unpredictable. In a world with magic cause and effect are arbitrary and may change at any time.
Now if you are done being a coward because you know how badly it will make you look if you answer the question honestly. “Is genocide ever acceptable under your worldview?” Yes or no?
Ken Ammi
Friend, your frustration should be focus on your worldview’s utter failure. You merely demand, demand, demand and have no premise upon which to do so. So, you can keep complaining about me but anyone who reads this discussion (here and when I post in on my website) will see that you have failed to establish step one and merely demand that I jump to dealing with your conclusions.
So again, you condemn “avoidance and hypocrisy” but without a premise which means that you are not actually condemning them. See how it works, since you make baseless claims, you leave me no claims against which to defend: you are merely being emotive—which, not ironically, is in keeping with your worldview which tells you that you are merely a reactionary animal (by accident, of course).
Now, I “reject an eternal energy and matter” because our best scientists tell us that energy and matter came into being a finite time ago. So, you can appeal to some fantasy realm of eternal energy and matter in order to defend your indefensible worldview but steady state cosmology was proposed and debunked long ago.
Ironically, it is fascinating that in typical Atheist manner: you reject an eternal personality but, without evidence and against the best most current scientific findings, accept eternal energy and matter.
If you worldview is true (and just what is truth on your worldview?) then we are just playthings of eternal energy and matter. But that on my view existence is about stroking God’s narcissistic ego is simply an embarrassingly childish assertion (without evidence) and you also condemn narcissistic without a premise so, you did not actually condemn it and so you discredited your own emotive assertion: see, nothing left for me to do, again.
Now, when you claim “this is the sixth time you have failed to answer the question” which is “Is genocide ever acceptable” you are just playing games since you demand to have your way no matter how illegitimately you are going about it: you really need to read up on logic, epistemology and ontology (at the very least).
Yes, genocide is acceptable since when I clean my hand with antibacterial hand sanitizer I am killing “99%” of the bacteria on my hand and that is healthy for me.
Now, you subjectively assert that “The basis of my ethical judgement is the fact that I exist and that i wish to continue to existing” and on your worldview you exist by accident and temporarily so appealing to that is a mere subjective personal preference that you made up out of whole cloth (of moth eaten cloth, actually) and on your worldview “cause and effect” is also by accident.
Thus, since your worldview cannot account for your existence nor for cause and effect (and no, accidents did it is not accounting for them) then you most certainly are borrowing from my worldview.
And how, coming from a worldview that begins with accidentally existing energy and matter that magically turn into everything, you can actually claim that my worldview is based on magic is not only erroneous but hypocritical. And, of course, since my worldview is not based on magic then it is not unpredictable but, guess what, your worldview of accidents randomly happening to accidents is unpredictable. But since, the universe functions on cause and effect then that discredits your accidents randomly happening to accidents worldview since in a world with accidental magic, cause and effect are arbitrary and may change at any time.
And you end by condemning cowardice but guess what: without a premise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.