Meet Ben Sperry, "a Swell Guy"

[gumOnShoe]

My college newspaper has only one pull that get's people read it, Ben Sperry. He is the equivalent of an internet troll, but unfortunately I believe that he believes half of what he writes. I will give you a single article, and then maybe more later on. He writes in the realm of politics and religion, so this forum is most apt for it. I warn you before hand that he writes a lot about things he does not understand. He believes the bible is enough proof for any argument. And finally, he doesn't edit his columns very well. I believe posting them up here falls under fair use, so long as I credit him. So, this is Ben Sperry's article from last week:

God Remains Manifest even amoungst atheists

There is no more important question. I will use this short column to present an argument to the affirmative. Specifically, I will be arguing for the existence of the triune, personal-infinite God who revealed Himself in the Christian Bible.

I will not use the classical arguments from cosmology, design, and other logical proofs; not because they are not valid, but because I think they partially miss the point. This point is that all non-theists must assume parts of the Christian worldview in order to debate God's existence.

It could be comparedto a debate over the existence of the air we breathe. while one argues in favor of its existence and another against it, they both breathe the air the whole time.

What do i mean by this? Simply that logic, natural law, and morality can only exist in the Christian theistic framework. When the non-theist uses arguments which rely on any of these things, he/she is borrowing from the Christian worldview because their own worldview cannot account for the existence of these concepts.

Don't believe me? One must look no farther than postmodernism to see an example of the denial of God being carried to its conclusion. Since postmodernism refuted itself in my last few columns, I will now examine its father modernism.

I, that is gumOnShoe, would like to point out that all he did was claim several times that logic could not allow Postmodernism to exist because it disproved itself, supposedly. He likes to think just writing a column and saying this makes it true. Don't worry, he didn't actually disprove postmodernism. Now back to the article.

One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

Further, Dawkins cannot explain why natural law and logic exists in the first place. In an atheist universe, a belief in natural law or logic is not justified because the universe and man are just the products of blind chance and natural selection.

Yet, Dawkins assumes the existence of natural law and logic, and he can only do so by borrowing from the Cthristian worldview. The Christian has a rational justification for natural law and logic because they know a rational God created the nattural world and created man in His image as a rational being who can understand this world.

The atheist has no such justification, but just as the person arguing that air doesn't eit, he/she continues to breathe God's air and live in God's world.

As Romans 1:19-21 says of nonbelievers, "that which is known of God is manifest among them, for god did mainfest it to them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable; because having known God they did not glorify Him as God, nor gave thanks, but were meade vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened, professing to be wise, they were made fools."

</article>

So, what do you guys think of a man who wants a political career in the future?

Summary: "Only Christians can have logic, the rest of us are blind copy cats."

Also, nevermind that Muslims created the Zero, Jews were around some 3000 years longer than Christians (which most Christian Theology, Core Morality, and Law is based off of), and Confucious didn't know what he was talking about etc.

I'll bring you more, another one get's published tommorow.

[jcorishas]

Damn, I haven't laughed like that in a long time. That was hilarious and sad at the same time, thanks for sharing it.

- Jorge

[therealsylvos]

Well he does make a strong point on dawkins

I can't see it so it's not there

[ReThink]

I used to get a real good laugh out of guys like this but now I just shake my head and think "not another one...". It's amazing how easy it is to find people so eager to display their ignorance. They wear their stupidity like a badge of honour that says "Look at me! I love to attack opposing opinions even though I have no fucking clue what they believe!"

I'd go into detail about just how out of touch this guy is, but without him here to rebut me it seems like an exercise in futility.

[gumOnShoe]

At 10/10/07 10:04 PM, ReThink wrote: I'd go into detail about just how out of touch this guy is, but without him here to rebut me it seems like an exercise in futility.

I tell you what. If enough opinions are posted in response to this column and tommorws, with enough valid points, I will attempt to submit an opinion column, loosely related to those points that does not directly confront him (as others have already done that), but which raises opposing opinions in such a way that it's an intelligent argument he can't ignore. He may well ignore it anyway, but if he doesn't I'll post his response here. Also, if you have any questions, I can e-mail him and you can get your response.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

I think it's a federal law that every college paper must have one infallible expert who wins all debate by virtue of being themselves.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

Sorry for the double post, but since gumOnShoe wanted some counter arguments, I'll try my best, even though it is difficult to argue against what appears to be a conclusion without any actual premises.

At 10/10/07 09:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

God Remains Manifest even amoungst atheists

I will not use the classical arguments from cosmology, design, and other logical proofs; not because they are not valid, but because I think they partially miss the point. This point is that all non-theists must assume parts of the Christian worldview in order to debate God's existence.

It could be comparedto a debate over the existence of the air we breathe. while one argues in favor of its existence and another against it, they both breathe the air the whole time.

No it can't. Air can be OBSERVED through physical means. God can't.

What do i mean by this? Simply that logic, natural law, and morality can only exist in the Christian theistic framework. When the non-theist uses arguments which rely on any of these things, he/she is borrowing from the Christian worldview because their own worldview cannot account for the existence of these concepts.

Not being able to prove the origin of a thing does not mean that we cannot conclude the existence of the thing, especially when said thing is observed.

Don't believe me? One must look no farther than postmodernism to see an example of the denial of God being carried to its conclusion. Since postmodernism refuted itself in my last few columns, I will now examine its father modernism.

One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

Ok, I can't point out the exact name of this fallacy, but it is clear that he is trying to use argument by elimination without actually eliminating the majority of the arguments.

Further, Dawkins cannot explain why natural law and logic exists in the first place. In an atheist universe, a belief in natural law or logic is not justified because the universe and man are just the products of blind chance and natural selection.

First, just because a person cannot explain the origin of something does not mean that one cannot claim that said thing does not exist, especially when such things are observed to exist. According to his logic, before people had a concept of a god, they could not argue that the Sun existed because they couldn't explain where the Sun came from. Logic and the laws of Chemistry, Physics, and Biology can be observed, even if we cannot explain where they came from.

Second, let's assume that we do need a metaphysical cause for these concepts our "swell guy" mentions. Where is the evidence that this metaphysical cause must in fact be the Christian God? He presents none beyond his inane conclusions that he presents as premises.

Third, lets use our esteemed idiot's own logic against him. Why does the Christian God exist? We do not know why said God exists, therefore we cannot argue the existence of God because we do not know God's origin. Of course, we could just state that God "always existed." The problem here is that we need to know what is the quality of God that explains why God is eternal and has always existed. Since we do not know what this quality is, we cannot argue this origin. Without the origin of God explained, we cannot use God in our argument.

Furthermore, in a somewhat separate vein, because we do not know what is special about God that allows God to have simply always existed, we can just as easily claim that the matter and energy in the universe have simply always existed in some form as well, thus eliminating our need for a first cause.

Yet, Dawkins assumes the existence of natural law and logic, and he can only do so by borrowing from the Cthristian worldview. The Christian has a rational justification for natural law and logic because they know a rational God created the nattural world and created man in His image as a rational being who can understand this world.

Uhhhh...NO. Once again, Dawkins can assume logic and the natural law because such things are *gasp* observable. I don't need to a concept of a diety to observe anything. I could have been born in the forrest, never exposed to religion, and yet still see that the sun exists, or that gravity exists.

The atheist has no such justification, but just as the person arguing that air doesn't eit, he/she continues to breathe God's air and live in God's world.

As Romans 1:19-21 says of nonbelievers, "that which is known of God is manifest among them, for god did mainfest it to them, for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world, by the things made being understood, are plainly seen, both His eternal power and Godhead -- to their being inexcusable; because having known God they did not glorify Him as God, nor gave thanks, but were meade vain in their reasonings, and their unintelligent heart was darkened, professing to be wise, they were made fools."

Yes, because we all know using the Bible as a premise to prove God when it's validity is based on the assumption of said God is not in any way circular logic.

</article>

So, what do you guys think of a man who wants a political career in the future?

Haven't we had enough idiots in government.

Summary: "Only Christians can have logic, the rest of us are blind copy cats."

Also, nevermind that Muslims created the Zero, Jews were around some 3000 years longer than Christians (which most Christian Theology, Core Morality, and Law is based off of), and Confucious didn't know what he was talking about etc.

If you check ancient Indian philosophy, some schools of thought used complex syllogisms that required 5 components as opposed to the three we use today. You could also bring up the point that much of Western Philosophy started with the ancient Greeks.

I'll bring you more, another one get's published tommorow.

[Elfer]

At 10/10/07 09:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

I like this part here, where he makes up a fake argument in order to make himself look smart.

That's right, the only person claiming that "finding God is impossible" leads to "God does not exist," is, you guessed it, Ben Sperry.

[Earfetish]

At 10/10/07 11:05 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

Ok, I can't point out the exact name of this fallacy, but it is clear that he is trying to use argument by elimination without actually eliminating the majority of the arguments.

Straw man. What Dawkins actually says is, since God cannot be observed or tested (or because He fails every test) and there is no evidence for his existence, then it is reasonable to assume that it is very unlikely that such a creature exists. Building a straw man is saying 'Dawkins says science can't find stuff out-of-science, so God must not exist', that's ridiculous, atheists accept that there's some things science can't quantifiably measure, like love.

It's a straw man fallacy, and a very obvious one too; if Dawkins has written volumes about why he doesn't believe in God then it's an amazing straw man to condense all his arguments down to a few words.

Praise Dawkins!

[poxpower]

haha yay.

College is way easier than people think.
Or maybe people are way stupider than I thought.

Oh wait I pick both.

[tony4moroney]

At 10/10/07 09:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

What do i mean by this? Simply that logic, natural law, and morality can only exist in the Christian theistic framework. When the non-theist uses arguments which rely on any of these things, he/she is borrowing from the Christian worldview because their own worldview cannot account for the existence of these concepts.

ROFL

what in the living fuck...

so christians now possess a monopoly on philosophy, science and compassion...

Don't believe me? One must look no farther than postmodernism to see an example of the denial of God being carried to its conclusion. Since postmodernism refuted itself in my last few columns, I will now examine its father modernism.

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA this guy is an absolute moron. he reminds me of Tennis from Salon but much, much worst. woops... typo on the 'ha-ha'.

One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

modernism? richard dawkins is to genius what my penis is to vaginas. not exactly a perfect fit. id call him more of an impassioned atheist.

and the rest of your post is epic failz

[Drakim]

I love how he blames atheists for lacking a answer for how the universe came about, and yet he won't be able to answer how God came about.

[Brick-top]

I haven't had a laugh like that since.....Well ever.

It reminds me of those little parody cartoons where a man makes a stupid comment and then his friend slaps him in the face.

[Elfer]

At 10/11/07 12:14 PM, poxpower wrote: haha yay.

College is way easier than people think.
Or maybe people are way stupider than I thought.

Oh wait I pick both.

Everyone seriously, seriously overestimates a college education.

I mean, I'm in engineering, and pretty much everyone else is an idiot, what hope do easier programs have?

[morefngdbs]

What I truely loved about his article, was everything is because of Christianity & the bible.
So it's what 1700 years of Christianity... what about the hundreds of thousands of years that man has existed with no such "truth" as the "Christian/bible truth'.

Ben Sperry sounds like a nutcase.

[Draconias]

At 10/10/07 09:25 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

It could be comparedto a debate over the existence of the air we breathe. while one argues in favor of its existence and another against it, they both breathe the air the whole time.

That's an invalid analogy; the two situations are not similar in that manner, so they cannot be compared in that manner. Air was the term invented for a physical thing that already existed, just as "rock" and "grass" are similar terms. God is not such a thing, but rather something with no physical component that is used in an ideological structure. Hence the invalid analogy.

Rather, the debate over God is much more akin to the debate over the existance of ether that happened decades ago; the worldviews held by some individuals demanded the existance of ether to be consistant within themselves, so they argued that it must exist and be so far undetectable. There was no true physical basis for the existance of ether, only a demand for it in the current worldviews.

Point you can use: Invalid analogy, God is not a physical object to be named. God is more similar to ether, something with no apparent physical component that is necessary for a set of ideological views to be consistant. God or no God, we still exist; ether or no ether, light still travels.

What do i mean by this? Simply that logic, natural law, and morality can only exist in the Christian theistic framework. When the non-theist uses arguments which rely on any of these things, he/she is borrowing from the Christian worldview because their own worldview cannot account for the existence of these concepts.

That is incorrect. Logic, natural law, and morality originated prior to the existance of Christianity and primarily from sources that were not even Jewish. Therefore, Christianity is not necessary for any of the above. Were the ancient Greeks and Romans Christian or Jewish? No.

Point you can use: Logic, natural law, and morality originated independent from and prior to Christianity and its predecessors. Therefore, Crhistianity and its predecessors are not necessary for logic, natural law, or morality.

Don't believe me? One must look no farther than postmodernism to see an example of the denial of God being carried to its conclusion. Since postmodernism refuted itself in my last few columns, I will now examine its father modernism.

One of the leaders of modernism in the world today is Richard Dawkins. He is a genius by many standards and a great scientist, but his philosophical ability is supremely lacking. For instance, he argues that materialistic science can not find an immaterial God, thus no such God exists. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to see how silly this argument is.

But can you justify that something should exist outside of that set of rules? If God is an exception in a reality that otherwise does not tolerate exceptions, then his existance must be proven, not the reverse. It does not take a very philosophically sophisticated person to create a "God of the Gaps," either. The basis of proof should rest on the one proposing a violation of the rules, not the one with the consistant system.

Point you can use: God is an exception to the rules of reality as we know them, therefore the assumption that he does not exist is the reasonable, default one. A system that is otherwise completely consistant does not usually have exceptions. Therefore, the religious must prove the existance of God and not vice versa.

Further, Dawkins cannot explain why natural law and logic exists in the first place. In an atheist universe, a belief in natural law or logic is not justified because the universe and man are just the products of blind chance and natural selection.

Wrong. This statement must be corrected no matter what. Blind chance is not, never has been, and never will be a component of our reality. Everything about the scientifically-described universe is entirely ordered and directional. Atoms don't bond randomly, mass doesn't clump by chance, and the universe doesn't operate by luck; the entire universe relies on the basic concept of lower energy states and everything has a tendency to go towards those states. Natural selection is the process of ordered chemical reactions maintaining a higher energy state by lowering the energy around them and those that are most capable of sustaining the reaction eventually harvest the energy of the less capable reactions.

Point you can use: Absolutely nothing is random or by chance in our universe. In fact, it is the exact opposite, acting more predictably than even Determinism with a God could justify. God does not give order to the universe, God is the "random chance" element that people argue for.

Yet, Dawkins assumes the existence of natural law and logic, and he can only do so by borrowing from the Cthristian worldview. The Christian has a rational justification for natural law and logic because they know a rational God created the nattural world and created man in His image as a rational being who can understand this world.

No rational God is necessary for logic and natural law. A rational Universe is sufficient justification for logic and natural law, and logic is a construct of humanity based upon that rational universe.

Point you can use: A "rational" Universe is even better than a "rational" God, so no God is necessary to justify natural law and logic. Again, these concepts are older than Christianity, so they are obviously independent.

The atheist has no such justification, but just as the person arguing that air doesn't eit, he/she continues to breathe God's air and live in God's world.

The Atheist has a more valid justification because direct experience has proven that their assumption of natural law and logic is correct. The same cannot be said for those who base their beliefs in natural law and logic in a being that inherently violates natural law and all forms of logic.

Point you can use: Atheists base their belief in natural law and logic on direct experience and evidence. The Religious base their same belief in a being that violates natural law and is inherently illogical, a contradiction within itself.

As Romans 1:19-21 says of nonbelievers

As the leader of Nazi Germany said of Jews "...". Speakers that are obviously unreliable and biased cannot be used as evidence in favor of something. Bringing in an unsettled claim from an invalid source does not support your argument.

[Athlas]

As if this world isn't inhabited by 5 billion non-christians who happen to have opinions on matters such as these, as well.

The fitting word to decribe him would be "festering hypocrit", I think...

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 10/11/07 06:08 PM, Athlas wrote: As if this world isn't inhabited by 5 billion non-christians who happen to have opinions on matters such as these, as well.

Yes, but Ben Swell has THE TRUTH(tm). After all, why else would the college give him a column?

I mean, besides making readers feel less guilty about letting birds crap on their paper?

[Athlas]

At 10/11/07 06:49 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 10/11/07 06:08 PM, Athlas wrote: As if this world isn't inhabited by 5 billion non-christians who happen to have opinions on matters such as these, as well.

Yes, but Ben Swell has THE TRUTH(tm). After all, why else would the college give him a column?

I hope it happened during a moment of critical brain failure. Otherwise they're probably equally ignorat.

I mean, besides making readers feel less guilty about letting birds crap on their paper?

Because they feel it is their responsibility to provide an ample supply of paper for student hamster cages?

[gumOnShoe]

At 10/11/07 07:05 PM, Athlas wrote:

At 10/11/07 06:49 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 10/11/07 06:08 PM, Athlas wrote: As if this world isn't inhabited by 5 billion non-christians who happen to have opinions on matters such as these, as well.

Yes, but Ben Swell has THE TRUTH(tm). After all, why else would the college give him a column?

I hope it happened during a moment of critical brain failure. Otherwise they're probably equally ignorat.

Ben Sperry is a regular columnist that prints weekly since the beginning of last year. He's probably published almost 30 equal calibur columns, and another one came today. I'll post it up soon, along with a response to him because I feel it's a decent one.