Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Atheists remind us why we don't like them

From CNN:

Atheist group wants to stop World Trade Center cross

(CNN) -- A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit to stop the display of the World Trade Center cross at a memorial of the 9/11 terror attacks.

The "government enshrinement of the cross was an impermissible mingling of church and state," the American Atheists say in a press statement.

The group says it filed the lawsuit this week in state court in New York and posted a copy of the lawsuit on its website.

The lawsuit names many defendants, including the state of New Jersey, the city of New York , New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.

The World Trade Center cross, two intersecting steel beams that held up when the twin towers collapsed on September 11, 2001, is seen as iconic to some.

The cross was moved Saturday from near a church to its new home at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. There was also ceremonial blessing of the cross in a service led by Father Brian Jordan, a Franciscan monk who ministered to workers clearing the area after the 9/11 attacks.

Joe Daniels, 9/11 Memorial president, said Saturday that the cross is "an important part of our commitment to bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the history of 9/11 in a way nothing else could.

"Its return is a symbol of the progress on the Memorial & Museum that we feel rather than see, reminding us that commemoration is at the heart of our mission."

But the atheist group says the cross sends a symbol of something different.

"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon," said Dave Silverman, president of the atheist group. "It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It's a truly ridiculous assertion."

Atheism a hateful totalitarian ideology. Wherever atheism gains power, basic rights are cast aside. Atheists' transparent goal is to use censorship and government force to exterminate Christianity.

The proper legal response to this disgusting lawsuit is to dismiss it with prejudice, and to assess the atheist b*stards who filed it with court costs.

84 comments:

  1. New Atheism for the win XD. Looks like we are about to see society in yet another break down!

    I have been thinking about this whole movement of the New Atheists and I must say... they have really screwed up this time XD! I mean I see the reason for the popularity in England and France. England is a approximately 1/5 atheistic; filled with Secular Humanists groups whom, guess what, are all anti-religion. The country itself is really secular, so I see that kind of stupid ideology sticking there, I mean, it makes sense right, with so many Muslins moving to Europe, and since the Europeans hate with a passion people that are not Europeans and go there to live... Without saying the Terrorism cases!

    It is evident that a country like England would accept New Atheism, which preaches that we should oppress religion and religious people, You know, get people that have faith far away from power and maintain as the mainstream of government thought secular ideas. New atheism preaches that atheists should not respect religion as well! I mean ...who the f*** needs respect right, that is for those delusional God-loving people, but since their ideas are not secular... they deserve to be segregated muhhahhahah.

    Oh I will not even start about France, which is 1/3 atheistic and ... well it is France people, they choped off heads in the name of reason XD can't be more rational than that in my opinion!!! Without saying they have all these laws to sort of suppress muslins from ... being muslins in public XD. I mean serious ???

    Is it me, or you people noticed how bad that is ... for Atheists. i know the whole point is to create a huge "revolutionary" mass to hurt theism and who knows, get a heck loads of power to atheists, but the only problem is that: Atheists are the minority.

    In countries like the USA, where Atheism is represented by only 1% of the population, you are asking to be hated!!! And the worst part, you are pretty much throwing down the trash the image of Atheists. Not that their image has been all that good, but I think of the cool Not-activist Atheists; what about those guys and girls ???

    I think really ... New Atheism is just a vvveerryyy stupid idea, Atheism is gonna have the same image of 300 years ago: A evil, stupid, denialist ideology upheld by extremist people or something between those lines.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You want to see hateful, look at how Christians are responding to the Atheists. Some are literally wishing (and presumably praying for) rape, torture and death upon the people who are using legitimate legal channels to challenge something that they disagree with. Not to mention that there are Jewish plaintiffs with the exact same concerns, yet nobody seems to be calling them evil or hateful. I find that interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Anon:

    "people who are using legitimate legal channels to challenge something that they disagree with."

    In a free country, the appropriate channel to challenge something you disagree with is public discussion. Dragging people who have different views into court to use judicial force to compel them to abide by your ideology is soft totalitarianism.

    Whenever and wherever atheists assume government power, they crush religious practice. When they assume full power, they kill people who disagree with them.

    It's 100 million killings and counting.

    Can you name the country ruled by an explicitly atheist regime that wasn't a totalitarian hellhole?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Atheism a hateful totalitarian ideology.

    Bullshit. And you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can you name the country ruled by an explicitly atheist regime that wasn't a totalitarian hellhole?

    __________________________

    errr.... good point ... maybe some Buddhists countries ???


    Let me list the ones I remenber that had explicit Atheism as the government's ideology

    Albany: Executions occured and many people were thrown away from the country, especially priests and people of the clergy. the people wasn't exaclty in a good place. In the 70's I think ... things became a bit better and the Country now is a pretty much muslin country, but still very controversial story

    Russia/USSR: Errr... 60 millions dead... that is not exaclty a Succesful Revolution XD without saying they even broke their own country with that whole Cold War thing.

    China: ...40 millions and counting people. China never been a nice country to be sincere, buit communism isn't exactly helping. And the enforced Atheism and religious prosection doesn't make it paradise XD

    Cuba: Pretty much a f*** in the a** country. Battle after battle and after taking power it became a totalitarian state that has no goal since achieving True Communism was impossible for Cuba. With so many enbargos up their a**** is hard to say if Cuba will ever be a good place to live...

    Revolutionary France: Yeah ... They chopped people's head in the name of reason XD... Their period of State Atheism was small but bloody nonetheless. Guess it was just the mood of the whole thing. Call them reactionary and chop their head's off XD.


    I guess .... that was it.


    ______________________________________


    Well Anon... things are a bit different isn't it ??? Jews believe that Christ was a prophet... a sort of crazy one but a God sent prophet.

    Atheism... well ... new atheism .... hmmm not really. For them is all a myth.

    The whole Approach is different In my opinion

    ________________________________________

    Well Oleg. The Western Form of Atheism is really really... really based in Anti-Religion, Anti-Theism, Niihilistic, Communist, Anarchist Metaphysical Naturalist, Materialistic and Positivistic


    Seriously... get every one of the atheists of our side of the world.... usually they fall RIIIGHT in those ideologies. Why ???

    Well ... all our major atheist thinkers were defenders of those ideas. So when an Atheist goes reach out for other atheists, guess what they find ???

    Exactly ...these ideologies printed all over atheist sites.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @oleg:

    [Atheism a hateful totalitarian ideology.

    Bullshit. And you know it]

    So why don't you deal with me the 'atheist way': take me to court and force me to shut up, with the risk of imprisonment if I don't tow the atheist line.

    If atheism isn' t inherently a totalitarian ideology, explain:

    1) Why are all nations governed by atheist ideology totalitarian?

    2) Why is the use of judicial force to silence Christians so common among atheists? How many times have Christians gone to court to force atheists to shut up?

    ReplyDelete
  7. So in a country that is two-thirds to three-quarters Christian, do you really think the "miniscule minority" of Atheists would have their opinion heard if they tried to voice their concerns about the Ground Zero Cross in a public discussion? No, the Christian majority would just tell them to shut up, as they have been doing.

    I would love to know how these Christians would react to the erection of an exclusively Jewish or an exclusively Muslim monument to all those Christians lost on 9/11.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds like a wannabee anon Jewish man posting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anon:

    [So in a country that is two-thirds to three-quarters Christian, do you really think the "miniscule minority" of Atheists would have their opinion heard if they tried to voice their concerns about the Ground Zero Cross in a public discussion?]

    So you're admitting that atheists are resorting to force because they believe that civil discussion would be unsuccessful?

    [No, the Christian majority would just tell them to shut up, as they have been doing.]

    Actually, atheism (4% of the population) has a very loud voice. Go to any bookstore, look at the books, and tell me if Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, etc are being "shut up".

    And in public discussion, anybody can tell anybody else to shut up if they want. Free country, pal. It's using force (judicial or otherwise) to shut people up that's unethical.

    Can you provide examples of Christians in America using force to silence atheists?

    [I would love to know how these Christians would react to the erection of an exclusively Jewish or an exclusively Muslim monument to all those Christians lost on 9/11.]

    There are all sorts of Jewish and Muslim shrines, memorials etc for all sorts of things. I welcome them, because unlike you, I'm not a totalitarian.

    The Ground Zero Mosque is another matter. It is a "victory mosque", of the sort built by Muslims for 1300 years at the sites of military victories, and should not be permitted. We would not permit a celebratory Shinto shrine in Pearl Harbor, or a monument to Neo-Nazis at Auschwitz.

    Muslim commemoration/worship that is not a victory symbol is fine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike,

    You are going nuts.

    If atheism is "a hateful totalitarian ideology," why doesn't the US law prohibit atheists from becoming naturalized citizens? It certainly does so in the case of fascism and communism.

    Not only are atheists allowed to become US citizens, they have the right to give the oath of allegiance without the words "so help me God."

    I have no intent of dragging you to court. You have every right to embarrass yourself publicly. And I have every right to point out your silliness.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't see how legal challenges are a "use of force". I don't support totalitarianism, but I think there are some legitimate concerns about the implications of the Ground Zero cross. If the law does not agree with the American Atheists, then they won't win. Simple.

    I personally don't have a problem with having monuments to every religion at Ground Zero. Even though I think religion is poison, at least people would get equal representation that way. As it is, Christianity is the only religion that cross represents.

    Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc ARE being told to shut up, constantly. They're just refusing. Free speech and all that.

    Christians in America using force to silence atheists, I don't know; do death threats count? What about families and entire communities publicly shunning and berating young atheists simply for making their beliefs known, such as the Damon Fowler story? There seems to be plenty of that.

    The ground zero mosque isn't on Ground Zero, but I am aware that there are Muslims who have every intention of converting America into a Muslim country. We have the same problem in the UK. One group has resorted to putting up "Sharia Zone" posters, where they plan to violently enforce Sharia law, including the banning of free mixing between the sexes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon.

    If your corcern is towards a European country. YES! absolutely, England prefers secular beliefs over Christian ones. I mean if a Christian were to critized a Homosexual in England, there is a good chance that he will be arrested. Why ? Because criticism is phobia!!! * sort of XD *

    In France, mosques can't raise their symbols no more, and muslin women can't use the veil. These things happen all the time in Europe.

    And yes, 1/6 of Europe is composed of Atheists, so they are heard, even if their ideas are agressive and unfair... are heard anyway. Welcome to Democracy XD!

    * oh so they are 4%... have to update my statistics brain database XD *

    _____________________________________

    Well Anon, in your favor I can see why Atheists are prone to use propaganda and the Law so things can be their way.

    But nothing, I suppose, gives people the right to take the rights from other people.

    Now the atheists have the right to criticise the Ground Zero Cross ??? Well I think that they do. Aren't they citizens of USA ? So i think that they deserve to have the right to criticise.

    Now do they have the right to impose over other people their will simply because of their personal beliefs... WOW ... OF COURSE NOT!!!!

    That is why this whole thing against the cross is stupid.

    I mean if anything ... why not raise the Escarlate ( the New atheism symbol ) on Ground Zero ????

    since the atheists must be represented always in every matter of every piece of a persons life XD ??? huh ???

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc ARE being told to shut up, constantly. They're just refusing. Free speech and all that.

    _______________________________________

    Well they said to disrespect religious people simply on the groun of them being religious... because they think pretty much like you Anon. Religion is poison.

    Do you mind proving that????

    Oh you are an UK atheist XD even better!!!

    So religion is poison... you do know that those intimidation tactics are pretty much worthless right ??? I mean, it can be used to your position as well.

    Atheism ... is poison xP

    SEE... does that make it so ??? I don't think so

    * well since you will prove beyond the reasonable doubt that Religion is poison, I would like for you to give me a good answer. First tell what Religions poisons exactly and why. Second I want to you show me how the many different people in religion have been poisoned. Third is the Poison Unique or it happens among secular institutions and ideas as well?

    And of course a good explanation is the one that gets the evidence correct and the evidence is explainede only theory!!! *

    ReplyDelete
  14. damn some words got missed XD.

    And of course a good explanation is the one that gets the evidence correct and the evidence is explained only by the theory!!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Like I said, if it turns out that they don't have any legal grounds to oppose the cross, then they will lose the case, and you don't have anything to worry about. Let them waste their money on a frivolous lawsuit if you're so confident that it's stupid.

    The atheists don't have some agenda that says "every time somebody is being even slightly religious, we have to ruin it for them". Maybe there are a few anti-theists that feel that way, but the majority of atheists are fine with letting people be whatever religion they want, as long as they're not hurting anybody else or forcing their religion upon others, and that's where the conflict starts.

    If I see a priest or whatever telling an 8 year old girl that her parents are going to Hell for divorcing, you can bet I'll object to that.
    If I see a parent teaching their child that homosexuals are evil and should be hated, I'll object to that.
    If I see a faith healer blaming a disabled person for "not having enough faith" to be healed, I'll object to that as well.

    But if I see somebody just praying, or wearing a religious necklace, or reading a Bible, I don't give a damn. They might as well be reading a horoscope as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Let them waste their money on a frivolous lawsuit if you're so confident that it's stupid.

    ________________________________

    I don't care about money man. I care about actions! They can waste their money as much as they like that is not what I am interested really.

    --------------------------------


    The atheists don't have some agenda that says "every time somebody is being even slightly religious, we have to ruin it for them"

    ________________________________

    I agree... the New Atheists are very close to that XD but okay I agree that atheists are not necessarily like that.

    --------------------------------

    Maybe there are a few anti-theists that feel that way, but the majority of atheists are fine with letting people be whatever religion they want, as long as they're not hurting anybody else or forcing their religion upon others, and that's where the conflict starts.

    ____________________________

    Anti-Theism is all about ruining things for theists XD. Second this whoe shoving their believes on other people is exactly what many atheist activists do. So maybe we should silent them as well XD don't you say ?

    ----------------------------

    If I see a priest or whatever telling an 8 year old girl that her parents are going to Hell for divorcing, you can bet I'll object to that.

    ____________________________

    And what would you tell in response ??? there is no Hell you people are fine, you will just die and disappear and that is it 8D!!!!

    Well, maybe not that far, but consenquences in materialism and Metaphysical naturalism are worthless so of course no rational reason for ethics can come from there.... hmmmm well anyway what would you say exactly ?

    * personally I agree with you that, that is wrong. But why is wrong is something I believe you and I differ *

    --------------------------------

    If I see a parent teaching their child that homosexuals are evil and should be hated, I'll object to that.
    If I see a faith healer blaming a disabled person for "not having enough faith" to be healed, I'll object to that as well.

    ______________________________________


    Once again I agree with you, but what is necessarily wrong with that ???

    What are the Moral grounds that give that objection it's power ?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike: Can you provide examples of Christians in America using force to silence atheists?

    That's not too hard. Here is the case of Richard Mullens, a former high-school history teacher in Brookeland, TX, who was forced to resign from his job because some parents and school officials felt that he was "an atheist" and "too liberal."

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Anon:

    [I don't see how legal challenges are a "use of force".]

    Try telling a judge that you're not going to obey his order, and you'll learn about force.

    [I don't support totalitarianism, but I think there are some legitimate concerns about the implications of the Ground Zero cross.]

    If you don't like the cross, don' t look at it. Forcing other people to not look at it is totalitarian.

    [If the law does not agree with the American Atheists, then they won't win. Simple.]

    Winning tort cases has to do with many things besides law: intimidation, harassment, bad judges, publicity, financial ruin of defendants who unlike plaintiffs have to pay legal costs, etc. Don't be so naive.

    [I personally don't have a problem with having monuments to every religion at Ground Zero.]

    So what's your problem with the cross?

    [Even though I think religion is poison, at least people would get equal representation that way. As it is, Christianity is the only religion that cross represents.]

    So what?

    [Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc ARE being told to shut up, constantly. They're just refusing. Free speech and all that.]

    Name the Christians who have taken them to court to shut them up.

    [Christians in America using force to silence atheists, I don't know; do death threats count? What about families and entire communities publicly shunning and berating young atheists simply for making their beliefs known, such as the Damon Fowler story? There seems to be plenty of that.]

    Damon Fowler is a atheist jerk who used legal threats to bully his school district. They should shun the b*astard.

    [The ground zero mosque isn't on Ground Zero,]

    Yet it is. The landing gear landed on the roof. It's exactly Ground Zero.

    [but I am aware that there are Muslims who have every intention of converting America into a Muslim country. We have the same problem in the UK. One group has resorted to putting up "Sharia Zone" posters, where they plan to violently enforce Sharia law, including the banning of free mixing between the sexes]

    You atheists are the reason Islam is gaining power.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You're asking what is wrong with terrifying a small child with the concept of Hell? Or teaching a child to hate people who are guilty of nothing but love? Or blaming a disabled person who is in no way responsible for their disability?

    Morality is not subjective, based on culture or belief. There are things which are immoral regardless of context. Punishing the innocent, for example, has no place in any belief system that wishes to call itself moral. Morality does not come from the Bible or any other religious book. Many could argue that the Bible is, in fact, incompatible with morality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Many argue that against the bible without knowing it ... a thing about it XD they do that with many religious books.

    I agree ... some thing about morality are not subjective... but there is no such thing as morality in a Materialistic and Metaphysical naturalist world.... which so many atheists defend.

    Second Christianity does not necessarily punish gay people. They are just against it. Like you are against religion and have all the right to be ;)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Damon Fowler is a atheist jerk who used legal threats to bully his school district. They should shun the b*astard."

    Damon Fowler pointed out to somebody that his school was doing something unconstitutional, his name was leaked and his entire community (school, media, parents) threatened, bullied, and as good as ran him out of town for it.

    "You atheists are the reason Islam is gaining power."

    How's that?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Admit it, you hate atheists, Mike, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why is morality incompatible with a materialistic and natural world? Do you think that morality is predicated on the existence of eternal judgement in the afterlife?

    As an atheist, some Christians might find it hard to believe that I don't go around killing, raping and burning things, but believe it or not, I don't. And it's not just because of the fear of being arrested either.

    However, there are sociopathic/psychopathic Christians that WOULD do those things without the fear of God's judgement and so I 100% support their belief until the day they die.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Speaking of the Islam groups in the UK, check this out

    ReplyDelete
  25. @oleg:

    [Admit it, you hate atheists, Mike, don't you?]

    I really don't like atheism.

    I have a lot of fondness for atheists, at least if they behave in a civil manner.

    We Christians do this 'hate the sin; love the sinner' thing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is that why child-raping priests are protected in Catholicism?

    "Love the child-rapist, hate the raping of children" right?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Damon Fowler is a atheist jerk who used legal threats to bully his school district. They should shun the b*astard.

    That's a lot of fondness, right there, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why is morality incompatible with a materialistic and natural world? Do you think that morality is predicated on the existence of eternal judgement in the afterlife?

    As an atheist, some Christians might find it hard to believe that I don't go around killing, raping and burning things, but believe it or not, I don't. And it's not just because of the fear of being arrested either.
    ________________________________

    Anon...err #2?

    You are not really getting the point here. In Materialism you and I and just matter. Matter as far as it goes has no morality, because it can't choose anything. Since you and I are matter, we have no decision making. So you are not imoral, but rather Amoral, since morality pressupose choice. Choose to be good or bad, right or wrong, blue jeans or red jeans.

    So you are committing the same mistakes I use to do about this conversation. It is simples, you and I have no morals, you just have a predispossition to be "good" or think that you are good and I have the same thing. You have a predispostiton to an Atheist and I a Theist. So deep down everything is determined, even your reply and my reply.

    In metaphysical naturalism, there is nothing but rules. So as you can imagine the same problem shows up. You and I are determined by the laws and so our behavior and then we are again AMORAL, not imoral.

    So deep down if you really believe that you are a moral person, either you do not defend Materialism and Metaphysical Naturalism or you just have no idea what they really mean. And that is why no rational conclusions can come from Materialism and Metaphysical Naturalism. Because they both, by logic, have no morals.

    So if I were a materialist and a Naturalist, I would have no rational reasons to say that you are wrong for raping a person , or stealing, or robbing. And neither I would have any rational reasons to say that you did good for taking care of your son, or helping a stranger, or defending your rights.


    So it is all about power. Who has power has the "morals" he or she wants and that is it XD really.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Is that why child-raping priests are protected in Catholicism?

    _____________________________

    Perhaps XD. Or maybe it is just institutional problems like in every human endeavor I suppose.


    Careful not to mix up the institution and it's member beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I don't think we can know for sure that morality conflicts with materialism and metaphysical naturalism until we know everything about materialism and metaphysical naturalism, which we clearly don't.

    For the most part, The Golden Rule seems to apply. Treat others how you'd want to be treated. You don't have to be a genius to see why that rule could develop in a community/society dependent on each other for survival. But morality as something more innate and fundamental, yeah, I think we still have some science to do on that front.

    Sam Harris certainly seems to think that morality can be studied in the natural world (even in the context of determinism), in terms of neuroscience, brain chemistry, etc. I haven't gotten around to looking into the science of his arguments yet, but I think if morality exists, which it clearly does, then there is a naturalistic explanation for it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Do you think that morality is predicated on the existence of eternal judgement in the afterlife?

    ___________________________

    I just want to answer your question XD because I think it is a good question.

    Look, first, if the existence of eternal judgment in the afterlife is true, then there is a good reason to be moral right XD ???

    But what I really believe is that morality is not a means to an end but rather the end itself. As in: I am good nor I do good.

    In other worlds, being good as an essence of the human mind or brain if your prefer XD. Not as a means to get to paradise, but simply as part of your essence.

    At least that is what I believe.

    And yeah Naturalism does not accept that idea since we never spotted our essence and since our essence could be considered by some factor as supernatural, there is no such thing in Metaphysical Naturalism

    About materialism... well there is no special matter, as far as we know, and since we are not necessarily our atoms then in the materialist world view your morality is just a combination of organic parts which have by default essence but the essence of matter: in other worlds... A extreme rule follower that has no morality.


    Putting simply, Believing that I am good because That is a projection let's say of my essence is nutzor in materialism of naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I don't think we can know for sure that morality conflicts with materialism and metaphysical naturalism until we know everything about materialism and metaphysical naturalism, which we clearly don't.

    _____________________________________

    See man, these philosophies they are not simply or epistemological claims. They are ontological claims. Both groups have very clear claims, that works as axioms to their ideas.

    SO materialism just say. Edward you are matter and nothing else. So everything that applies to matter must logic apply to me too. So if matter seem indifferent to the rest of the world, following well determined rules. I have to infer that I am the exact same thing * by logical inference *

    See if not as in Methodological Materialism or Naturalism where I am use simply a framework. These things are Metaphyiscal claims and much as the Soul, the Spirit, the Essence, or God. * reason which Positivists XD sort of disliked materialism as a philosophy *

    Now onto to you wishful thinking... I know that we probably might not know much about reality, we perhaps might know nothing about it. But still ... if such special things exist in matter ... why it haven't show up yet * yeah I know I am using a sort of End of Science argument XD and I know it is a worthless as a fart but I am more interested in invoking deep thought about the matter than necessarily stop it *

    ------------------------------------

    For the most part, The Golden Rule seems to apply. Treat others how you'd want to be treated. You don't have to be a genius to see why that rule could develop in a community/society dependent on each other for survival. But morality as something more innate and fundamental, yeah, I think we still have some science to do on that front.
    ___________________________________

    Tell that to Materialist Atheists on those front of research XD. They will swear to you that nothing will be found, you'd better get used with your worthlessness XD. And I mean it man. I mean I know someday matter could impress us. Yeahhh why not, we are not the ones who dictate rules to matter but matter dictates its own rules * in Theory *. But... who knows what people will call those special features of matter... make crackpot, maybe religion, maybe worse XD.

    I mean don't forget that most materialist and naturalists are by consenquence Niihilists. They see no mogic or hope at all out there man.

    ------------------------------


    Sam Harris certainly seems to think that morality can be studied in the natural world (even in the context of determinism), in terms of neuroscience, brain chemistry, etc. I haven't gotten around to looking into the science of his arguments yet, but I think if morality exists, which it clearly does, then there is a naturalistic explanation for it.

    _____________________________

    I think Harris approach is not all that good. He needs something of a morality rule number 0 to get the science started. The problem isss... what if he screws up Law Number 0 ?

    And Doctor Egnor here will surely tell you that brain analyses are not all that great to study thoughts, which is indeed what Harris wants. The thoughts the intentions so he can judge them according Law Number 0 * which works like a measure of moral *


    Maybe we do correlations with good actions and the brain... but ... I dunno, Harris talks about pleasure, and we know that pleasure can be obtained in all sorts of fucked ways including killing.

    If we were to use Pleasure as Rule 0, that could lead to all sorts of behaviors being considered... well ... GOOD XD.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry about the poor english people XD. My mind runs like at 100 mile per hour when I writing and I get everything wrong XD sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  34. I guess I could be called a nihilist. I don't believe there is any divine meaning or ultimate value to the human race. Sometimes it occurs to me that the universe is so vast, and that I am an insignificant speck on a piece of cosmic dust, but that exact same thought is also what makes me feel so amazed and so in awe of the universe. There doesn't need to be an ultimate meaning in order for me to appreciate life. I can just look at a plant and think about all of the processes that allowed it to come to be, and that's enough to make me appreciate the infinitesimally small likelihood of me being alive right now, and suddenly I feel inspired again.

    There are several large secular charities and communities out there who are focused on helping humanity. These are filled with people who do not believe in the soul, or spirit, or essence, but who nevertheless believe in helping people all the same.

    In fact, it is the individuals who feel that life is just a temporary stop on their ultimate path to paradise who I think will not fully appreciate their one short ride in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Richard “Dicky” Dawkins, the nec-plus-ultra neo-atheist and the Grand Omniscient Priest of this new militant army of “reason”, wanted to jail Pope Benedict XVI, for crime against humanity on counts of sexual abuse, committed by priests.

    Since it takes two to tango, how about bringing Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris et al . to court for crimes against humanity, on counts of murder, committed by atheistic regimes.

    Atheists are known to mock the Pope every chance they get.

    If they have balls, they should also mock Mohamed… and suffer the consequences.

    PS: If you insist, I can provide a video of such consequences, but you better not be afraid of blood!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, Pepe, there are no leaders of atheism. Dawkins, Hitchens et al are just outspoken and respected members of the group who have done nothing illegal. Calling them the 'Popes of atheism' is just weird and kind of ignorant. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is actually complicit in what is basically an organised child sex ring. Your analogy is incredibly faulty.

    Hitchens has been known to criticise Islam (and Mohammad) regularly, and with good reason.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Anon:

    [Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is actually complicit in what is basically an organised child sex ring.]

    The Catholic church today is probably the safest place for a child. Much safer than home or school.

    Even at its worst (in the 70's and 80's), the rate of sex abuse in the Church was much less than the rate of abuse in public schools and even in the home.

    And the risk of sex abuse in the home is dramatically increased by broken families, something the Church has been fighting for a long time.

    Your assertion that the Catholic church is "basically an organised child sex ring." is raw slander, analogous to the slander that all Jews are thieves or all Muslims are terrorists. You are wrong on the facts and motivated by obvious anti-Catholic bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Getting back on topic, as an atheist, I don't have too much problem with the Ground Zero Cross. Personally, I would have preferred more of the wreckage to have been preserved as a memorial, similar to the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedaechtnis Kirche in Berlin, which I see as a memorial to the folly of war, not a triumph of religion.

    Anyway, in a building with girders, crosses aren't all that miraculous in the wreckage.

    Regarding mosques as victory symbols. Probably applies to all places of worship too, cathedrals included. The community that builds magnificent mosques and cathedrals has to have been successful and rich enough to afford the enormous costs involved. They're interesting to look at, even for an atheist.

    Ken Follett, an avowed atheist, wrote two very thick novels, 'Pillars of the Earth' and 'World Without End', both of which are amongst my favorites, centered on the building and maintenance of a cathedral in medieval England.

    I personally don't think that Mohammed was a real person. I ascribe to the minority position that Islam started off as an Arab Christian sect, one that regarded God as being single, not divided into three. Mohammed in Arabic meaning 'to be praised'. The earliest written reference to Mohammed being the inscription in the mosque in Jurusalem which is misstated as 'Mohammed is the the messenger of God', whereas it should have been 'To be praised is the messenger of God', which actually refers to Jesus! Allah is God is just stating the Muslim position that in their concept of Christianity God is undivided and Jesus is just a prophet.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Anonymous

    Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is actually complicit...

    Stop ranting wildly and prove it!

    The kind of proof that will be accepted in a court of law: as an example, I do hope you remember the Nuremberg trials! They were about your kind...

    Hitchens has been known to criticise Islam...

    Pray tell me where and when!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hey now, you accuse me of intentional and bigoted slander without considering the possibility that I'm just ignorant. Please educate me. Did Benedict XVI not actively protect child rapists? Was there not a letter going around that proved he had told priests to not report accusations of child rape? Did he not move those accused to different locations so that they would be protected?

    I'm willing to admit that I'm mistaken, if indeed I am.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Anon:

    [I guess I could be called a nihilist. I don't believe there is any divine meaning or ultimate value to the human race.]

    You don't believe that you or the people you love have any ultimate value?

    [Sometimes it occurs to me that the universe is so vast, and that I am an insignificant speck on a piece of cosmic dust,]

    Of all of atheist philosophy, this is perhaps the... (pardon my bluntness).. dumbest. I've heard prominent and very well educated atheists (e.g. Neil DeGrasse Tyson) say this, and it leaves me gasping.

    Why would size matter? I could understand a 3 year old thinking that big things are more important than small things, but goodness gracious, what a stupid philosophy for an adult.

    Do you think that fat people are more important than skinny people? Tall people more important than short people? If you think that you are unimportant because you're smaller than something else, why obsess with the Milky Way. You're smaller than a tree, a hill, a pond,.. the list goes on and on. What, pray tell, does size have to do with importance?

    There is one thing that does matter-- that is really important-- and that is that humans are the only beings in the universe that we know of who ask these questions, who are rational and aware of the mysteries of existence. That is unique, and infinitely more important than height or width or mass.

    Some atheist philosophy is just stupid.

    [but that exact same thought is also what makes me feel so amazed and so in awe of the universe.]

    You're missing the thing most worthy of awe: the fact that you have awe.

    [There doesn't need to be an ultimate meaning in order for me to appreciate life.]

    True. Cockroaches seem to appreciate life, and don't discern any ultimate meaning (have you ever seen a depressed cockroach?).

    [I can just look at a plant and think about all of the processes that allowed it to come to be, and that's enough to make me appreciate the infinitesimally small likelihood of me being alive right now, and suddenly I feel inspired again.]

    The likelihood of you being alive right now is 1.0.

    When you contemplate the plant, contemplate this: there are an enormous number of intricate natural processes going on in the plant, in you, in everything. Did all of this elegantly organized stuff "just happen"?

    [There are several large secular charities and communities out there who are focused on helping humanity. These are filled with people who do not believe in the soul, or spirit, or essence, but who nevertheless believe in helping people all the same.]

    That's certainly true. Christians are, statistically , much more generous, but there are many very generous 'secular' people.

    [In fact, it is the individuals who feel that life is just a temporary stop on their ultimate path to paradise who I think will not fully appreciate their one short ride in this world.]

    Perhaps. The Christian argument has never been that Christianity will make this life a barrel of fun.

    But the issue is truth, which has nothing to do with how much fun you're having.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Anon:

    [Please educate me. Did Benedict XVI not actively protect child rapists? Was there not a letter going around that proved he had told priests to not report accusations of child rape? Did he not move those accused to different locations so that they would be protected?...I'm willing to admit that I'm mistaken, if indeed I am.]

    No. We're going to do it the other way around. You're going to educate me. Yo have accused a man (Joseph Ratzinger) of complicity in child sexual abuse and felony obstruction of justice.

    When I publicly accuse specific people of complicity in child sexual abuse and felony obstruction of justice, I have the facts before I make the accusation. I don't make the public accusation, and then ask for the facts.

    Your request for "education" is evidence that you made the allegation without facts. That's slander, and when done for reasons of religious hatred, its bigotry.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Pray tell me where and when!"

    Have
    you
    heard
    of
    YouTube?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "You don't believe that you or the people you love have any ultimate value?"

    Value to me, yes. Ultimate, cosmic, divine value, no. None of us do.

    "There is one thing that does matter-- that is really important-- and that is that humans are the only beings in the universe that we know of who ask these questions, who are rational and aware of the mysteries of existence. That is unique, and infinitely more important than height or width or mass."

    Absolutely true. Humans, as far as we know, are the only species capable of this kind of conscious thought and comprehension. Certainly the only species on Earth. That, also, is inspiring. But if some large astronomical object collided with Earth and wiped out every trace that humans had ever exists, the rest of the universe would continue as it always had, unaffected by our loss.

    "You're missing the thing most worthy of awe: the fact that you have awe."

    Awe is no more special than love or fear or hatred. All are powerful emotions evoked by chemical cocktails in one's brain, and yeah, the fact that those chemicals evoke a certain feeling in the "consciousness" that they are a part of is pretty amazing, but no moreso than any number of other natural mechanism.

    "When you contemplate the plant, contemplate this: there are an enormous number of intricate natural processes going on in the plant, in you, in everything. Did all of this elegantly organized stuff "just happen"?"

    Sure. Not all at once, but over millions and millions of years, through millions of generations, it happened.

    "But the issue is truth, which has nothing to do with how much fun you're having."

    Well there may be some who disagree with you. If one has a life filled with fun and happiness, who's to say that they haven't experienced life as best they can, even if they are ignorant of the truth. Personally, I'm very interested in learning the truth, and I have so far concluded that the natural, material universe is the truth, and that God, religion, astrology, homeopathy, etc are falsehoods.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Your assertion that the Catholic church is "basically an organised child sex ring." is raw slander, analogous to the slander that all Jews are thieves or all Muslims are terrorists. You are wrong on the facts and motivated by obvious anti-Catholic bigotry."

    I think it would probably be considered libel rather than slander, since it's written down, but it's the internet, so who cares? Anyway here is the document trail that raised some questions.

    Let the record also show that I did not state that the entire Catholic Church was an organised child sex ring, just that there was one WITHIN it. I would never suggest that all Catholic priests are child rapists. That would be a terrible generalisation, like the examples you posited.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @bachfiend

    "Personally, I would have preferred more of the wreckage to have been preserved as a memorial, similar to the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedaechtnis Kirche in Berlin, which I see as a memorial to the folly of war, not a triumph of religion."

    This is very much my opinion on the matter. That cross shaped piece of wreckage was specifically chosen because of it's shape. If it were truly being preserved simply as a monument to the buildings (which I would approve of), then there would be no issue with using a differently shaped piece of wreckage or turning the beam on its side to remove the religious connotation, or even (Heaven forbid) upside down, but I guess that would be pandering to the Satanists.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Anon:

    [[Elegantly organized stuff happens] not all at once, but over millions and millions of years, through millions of generations, it happened.]

    Oh. Time makes stuff more organized?

    I know, I know-- 'the miracle of natural selection', yada yada. Same old fairy tale.

    But actually I wasn't referring as much to biology as I was to physics and chemistry.

    Where do natural laws come from? For example, why is gravity an inverse square law, rather than an inverse cube? Why does nature accord so intimately with mathematics?

    Just happened? Aren't you curious where it all came from?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Mike: Where do natural laws come from? For example, why is gravity an inverse square law, rather than an inverse cube? Why does nature accord so intimately with mathematics?

    Curiosity killed the cat, Mike.

    There is a simple reason why the gravitational and electrostatic forces decay as the square of the distance. As does the intensity of light or radio signals. The surface area of a sphere surrounding the source grows as the square of the radius. The same flux (of photons or of electric field lines) penetrates spheres of different radii, meaning that the density of photons or electric flux decays as one over the distance squared.

    In two spatial dimensions, you get 1/R, in four 1/R^3.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @oleg:

    [There is a simple reason why the gravitational and electrostatic forces decay as the square of the distance. As does the intensity of light or radio signals. The surface area of a sphere surrounding the source grows as the square of the radius. The same flux (of photons or of electric field lines) penetrates spheres of different radii, meaning that the density of photons or electric flux decays as one over the distance squared...In two spatial dimensions, you get 1/R, in four 1/R^3]

    Your answer is the same as answering the question "Where did this email come from?" by answering "Your computer screen, of course".

    I asked were it all came from-- all of the geometry and laws and photons and all of nature. You seem oblivious to the question that really matters-- where do all of the laws come from?

    Just shit that happened?

    ReplyDelete
  50. There are several large secular charities and communities out there who are focused on helping humanity. These are filled with people who do not believe in the soul, or spirit, or essence, but who nevertheless believe in helping people all the same.

    In fact, it is the individuals who feel that life is just a temporary stop on their ultimate path to paradise who I think will not fully appreciate their one short ride in this world.

    __________________________

    You see, just because they think that it is worth to help people and defend materialism that does not mean the whole point makes sense. It is all about cohesion of the idea.

    Well that is typical opinion, but nothing really stops a theist to enjoy life.

    By the way, I am sure that is false dicotomy ... but well anyway, atheists are hardly the only type of people in the world who enjoys life to the fullest.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well, Pepe, there are no leaders of atheism

    ____________________________

    Of course there are XD. C'mon you really think that there is a single social group in this planet without leaders XD ?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Value to me, yes. Ultimate, cosmic, divine value, no. None of us do.

    __________________________

    And how do you know that can I ask you ???

    ---------------------------

    Absolutely true. Humans, as far as we know, are the only species capable of this kind of conscious thought and comprehension. Certainly the only species on Earth. That, also, is inspiring. But if some large astronomical object collided with Earth and wiped out every trace that humans had ever exists, the rest of the universe would continue as it always had, unaffected by our loss.

    _______________________________

    So in the end ... you inspiring thoughts are just some worthless bull shit XD ... yeahhh truly inspiring. Glorified nothing is still nothing in the end of the day.

    -----------------------------------

    Awe is no more special than love or fear or hatred. All are powerful emotions evoked by chemical cocktails in one's brain, and yeah, the fact that those chemicals evoke a certain feeling in the "consciousness" that they are a part of is pretty amazing, but no moreso than any number of other natural mechanism.

    ____________________________________

    Well start by describing the mechanism, and how it arose, and why is it here anyway. Please do sir!

    Sure. Not all at once, but over millions and millions of years, through millions of generations, it happened.

    _______________________________

    Well tell me a very detailed account of that please. Not just so stories, I want a dynamic, something that is reliable. And with details of course, since it is in the details that truth lies.
    ---------------------------------

    Well there may be some who disagree with you. If one has a life filled with fun and happiness, who's to say that they haven't experienced life as best they can, even if they are ignorant of the truth. Personally, I'm very interested in learning the truth, and I have so far concluded that the natural, material universe is the truth, and that God, religion, astrology, homeopathy, etc are falsehoods.

    _________________________________

    Well you can prove them all don't you ??? show me that they are falsehoods beyond the reasonable doubt please!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Mike: I asked were it all came from-- all of the geometry and laws and photons and all of nature. You seem oblivious to the question that really matters-- where do all of the laws come from?

    Just shit that happened?


    I thought you were genuinely interested in learning something. Looks like you were just trying to score a point.

    Questions like "where do all of the laws come from" may look profound but they are pretty useless. There is no way to answer them. "God crated the laws of nature" is a meaningless statement. It does not improve our knowledge of the universe in any way.

    In contrast, the scientific explanation of the inverse-square law provides a genuine insight that can be used in other contexts. For instance, it hints that long-range forces in two-dimensional systems decay as the inverse distance. That is indeed the case: quantum vortices in thin films of helium-4 attract and repel each other according to the inverse-distance law.

    There is another problem with the question "where do all of the laws come from?" The laws such as the law of gravity were not handed down to humans from on high. They were formulated by humans. And often they are not perfect. The inverse-square law for gravity actually fails for strong gravitational fields. It is superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity. So Newton's law of gravity was not exactly God's decree: it is just our imperfect, but still pretty good, picture of how the world works. Theologians and philosophers are not much of help in figuring it out.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Not necessarily Oleg. If you were to work the world all based what you think probably think what a god is what it has done. You might draw practical conclusions.

    Your statement is deeply philosophically, for instance, you presuppose that knowing forces is more important, but what necessarily makes it so ???

    You are pretty much using pragmatism. It is a school of thought, but nothing makes it better than other schools of thought.

    Knowlegde... well knowledge is knowledge. It doesn't necessaily need a objective.


    And still Oleg... why are there laws at all ??? Will we just keep finding systems and possible laws that explain the old findings or is there a Absolute Law?

    Is all about philosophy... science... is truly all about philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Of course there are XD. C'mon you really think that there is a single social group in this planet without leaders XD ?"

    Then tell me, who is the leader of not-believing-in-Santa?

    "Well start by describing the mechanism, and how it arose, and why is it here anyway."
    "Well tell me a very detailed account of that please."
    "And with details of course, since it is in the details that truth lies."
    "show me that they are falsehoods beyond the reasonable doubt please!"

    You don't ask for much, do you? All of the information you ask for here is available in thousands of studies and reports all over the internet. I haven't read them all, and I'm not a simultaneous expert in the fields of evolutionary biology, biochemistry, astrophysics, etc.

    If you are of the opinion that God exists, why do you not apply the same standard of argument to him? Prove that he exists beyond reasonable doubt. Explain exactly the process by which he came to exist in the first place. Provide data to show in a very detailed manner exactly how miracles occur.

    A ridiculous expectation, no? Am I expected to have no opinion about any matter unless it is proven to be absolutely true or false? My opinion is evidence-based, and evidence tells me that things are true or false.

    I can choose to trust the hundreds and thousands of people who have each spent decades studying their field, and publishing papers that are reviewed and criticised by others in his field until everyone else is more or less in agreement about something.

    Or I can choose to believe the words of a millenia-old book which condones some of the most hideous and immoral acts I've ever read.

    ReplyDelete
  56. It is the arrogance of the position that makes most of the people I know dislike the atheist stance.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Such a response from such a basic observation.
    This thread reminds me of the punk rocker kid who is shocked when people stare at his bright blue mowhawk haircut and responds with 'what the F you looking at?' ...er your HAIRCUT, kid.
    You folks (atheists) adhere to a philosophy that contends most people are stupid, deluded, maladapted animals who should submit to your notions of genetic and social engineering...and your shocked they don't like you?
    Try adopting a human and less misanthropic position!
    As for the assertions of sexual abuse within the Church (etc et ad nauseum), what is the position on sexual slavery and abuse of children in Communist (Godless) regimes? How about 'evolutionary psychology'? What about what men like Dr Singer say about child (and even animal) sex? How does all that reconcile with your bigotry, Anon?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Edward,

    Why don't you give us an example of a "practical conclusion" that was drawn because people assumed that the world is made by God and could not have been drawn without that assumption. I've heard that many times from many people but once I ask them to provide specific examples they retreat.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "You folks (atheists) adhere to a philosophy that contends most people are stupid, deluded, maladapted animals who should submit to your notions of genetic and social engineering...and your shocked they don't like you?"

    I contend that religion is actually a result of evolutionary adaptation. Belief in an all-powerful agent makes sense with evolutionary theory. That doesn't stop it from being a delusion, however. I don't think that religious belief makes them stupid people; just that religious belief is specifically a stupid belief.

    Are you making the claim that all atheists are into genetic/social engineering, because that's pretty bigoted itself. Yeah, I think it would work in theory, but that doesn't mean I want to do it.

    "what is the position on sexual slavery and abuse of children in Communist (Godless) regimes? How about 'evolutionary psychology'?

    I don't see why religion is relevant to one's position on sexual slavery or abuse of children. They are immoral. People who condone them are immoral. I would be just as appalled at the behaviour of the guilty priests if they were atheists.

    "What about what men like Dr Singer say about child (and even animal) sex? How does all that reconcile with your bigotry, Anon?"

    I'm not familiar with Dr Singer's work, but I very much doubt that he is condoning child sex.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Since my earlier comment seems to have been mysteriously removed, I'm forced to repeat myself:

    "Well start by describing the mechanism, and how it arose, and why is it here anyway."
    "Well tell me a very detailed account of that please. Not just so stories, I want a dynamic, something that is reliable. And with details of course, since it is in the details that truth lies."
    "Well you can prove them all don't you ??? show me that they are falsehoods beyond the reasonable doubt please!"

    If you believe in God, do you apply this same level of scientific inquiry to his existence? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that he exists? Can you explain the specific mechanisms and processes that caused him to exist? Can you describe in detail how he created light three days before he created the sun and stars?

    I am not an expert in the fields of evolutionary biology, biochemistry, astrophysics, and all the other fields that would be necessary to explain the things you ask, but the information you ask for does exist, if you genuinely care enough to seek it out.

    I can choose to trust the hundreds of individuals who have spent decades learning about this stuff, and publishing articles which are reviewed and criticised by other experts until a consensus is reached.

    Or I can choose to believe in a millennia-old book that condones things that I consider to be immoral and unjust.

    I chose the former.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Are you making the claim that all atheists are into genetic/social engineering, because that's pretty bigoted itself."

    Yes. All atheists I know and have known, yes. They ALL think that society needs to be engineered, and ALL think that genetic engineering should be uninhibited. If that makes me a bigot, what does it make them?

    "I don't see why religion is relevant to one's position on sexual slavery or abuse of children."
    Oh, but you do. Read your own comments above.

    " I would be just as appalled at the behaviour of the guilty priests if they were atheists. "
    I was not questioning your distaste, Anon. I will take that for granted.
    I was questioning your intellectual HONESTY.
    You project this vitriol against the RC priesthood, but make NO MENTION of the institutionalized and often LEGAL brutalities against children in Communist nations, which are ATHEIST by creed and exponentially (to the orders) outweigh the magnitude of the abuse within the RCC.

    "I'm not familiar with Dr Singer's work, but I very much doubt that he is condoning child sex."
    Doubt? Such faith!
    I quite am sure you're not familiar with positions of men like Singer, else you would not posit these inane arguments.
    Ignorance is bliss? That is the Atheist way.
    You should be familiar with Singer's work, regardless.
    You should judge the implications of his work, AFTER you have read it. |
    I know what I took from his essays: bestiality and pederasty are just outside the social norm. The norm is relative and shifts. What is 'wrong' today could be accepted as 'positive' tomorrow etc etc.
    Look it up, Anon.
    Ignorance may be bliss to the Atheist, but it is no excuse. Educate yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  62. crusadeREX: I was not questioning your distaste, Anon. I will take that for granted.
    I was questioning your intellectual HONESTY.

    Ignorance may be bliss to the Atheist, but it is no excuse. Educate yourself.


    crusadeREX,

    I find it pretty repugnant that you question Anon's honesty. You should apologize to him/her and refrain from doing so in the future.

    Also, I see no reason to think that Anon is lacking in education. Not compared to you, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Anon:

    [Since my earlier comment seems to have been mysteriously removed, I'm forced to repeat myself]

    It got caught in the spam filter. I've freed it below. Sorry about that; it's something I can't control, and I'll try to check the filter a couple of times each day. Please let me know if a post disappears, because it's probably in the filter.

    I know how frustrating it is. I've had it happen to me on other people's blogs, and it makes me nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  64. If you believe in God, do you apply this same level of scientific inquiry to his existence? Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that he exists? Can you explain the specific mechanisms and processes that caused him to exist? Can you describe in detail how he created light three days before he created the sun and stars?
    ____________________________

    Do I? well good question. First personal experience can count as a possible evidence for God. Rational arguments, there are many for God and many against God. But I noticed that the arguments in pro of God are far better in my opinion. Or the power of prayer... prayer has helped me a lot. Many rituals of religions have therapitical sides to it.

    To your second question... I can for me, but since God and Religion invokes so much hate in a lot of people I rather tell you that you should give a try. You won´t lose anything for giving a further look at religions and their teachings, listening what they have to say.

    God is necessary and Infinite Entity, Nothing produced it. you know the concept of something that has the capacility to move even thought is was never moved. Or the FIRST reality. All these concepts are possible and agree with the concept of God.

    If I were a Creationist XD which I am not * maybe a Darwin nonbeliever but still *

    I never interpreted Genesis that way not even as kid XD.

    And if you want I help you out to prove your point. I am not afraid to atribute as the winner the best naturalistic explanation. Of course as long it makes sense.

    ---------------------------------

    I am not an expert in the fields of evolutionary biology, biochemistry, astrophysics, and all the other fields that would be necessary to explain the things you ask, but the information you ask for does exist, if you genuinely care enough to seek it out.

    ___________________________

    Well I am challenging your intimidation tactic. XD and I know, there are substance that are liberated when you feel something, but that doesn´t mean it has been explained. Are the substances the feelings or products of feelings ???

    -----------------------------

    I can choose to trust the hundreds of individuals who have spent decades learning about this stuff, and publishing articles which are reviewed and criticised by other experts until a consensus is reached.

    Or I can choose to believe in a millennia-old book that condones things that I consider to be immoral and unjust.

    I chose the former.

    _____________________________

    Great but... then what? As far as I can tell... human beings can be wrong, second consesus does not make reality. You would agree with me if were in a church and the consensus is that Gos is.

    So since you said your choice I shall tell you mine. I believe in the men and women that have studied all their lives and created experiments and conclusions. Yeah I agree with them

    * yet again, I am not a creationist XD, just someone who makes a heck loads of questions *

    But I believe that I must analyse their work criticaly. It would be naive of me simply to accept their word as the truth because of their social position.

    That is what I choose. Not Science Vs Bible, but rather Critical Analisys Vs Simple Acceptance.

    Some things are indeed easier to accept. Yeah, like that light is waves, or the Newtonian Mechanics works, or that Relativity is a valid theory. Maxwell´s eletromagnetism. Hey I am writing this from a Physics Institute XD where I study!!!

    Guess people like you Anon... have been too much doctrinized in Scientism by teachers. Science is all about discussion, experiment, Question... philosophical ones, Theories, and overall especulation. That is Science, that is what Science is built Upon. Not simply blindly believing whatever people say. Want to be Scientific in a sense of attitude... well start by understand what Science is and what is NOT! it will do good for you

    ReplyDelete
  65. Flattery will get you nowhere with me, Oleg.

    Repugnant. Funny word for a Materialist.
    I am glad to see you repulsed by SOMETHING, Oleg. But really, you think that too harsh?
    There must be some sort of limit to behaviours, eh?
    Okay.
    I will apologize for my suggested (by Oleg) excess/rashness in judgement the very moment Anon (and any others) apologizes for their comments about the moral complicity of Pope Benedict in paedophile cases within the RCC.
    If Anon has misspoken and recants, then I have prejudged and apologize wholeheartedly.
    If I have somehow misread (on this TINY screen, on BLogger) his position, please indulge me and clarify so that I may restate my position.
    If not, then I will not.
    I will only apologize for the necessary severity of the language and the dissonance it may have caused. If I have made a harsh sound, beg to be excused.
    Without the above it seems to me the CANARD put forward by Anon is a dishonest approach to rebuttal. He/she (I will say HE or THEY unless otherwise stated, as I speak English) seeks to divert attention from his own position by attacking the personage of a man revered by millions and who this the leader and figurehead of an entire religion; conspicuously that of the blogger. Coincidence or 'repugnant'?
    How does one change the course of a conversation from a Cross in the wreckage of the WTC to pedophile rings in the RCC? Via Dishonesty, that's how.
    But, let Anon explain his motives for his comments.
    I simply reacted to the reaction.
    You can call that 'repugnant' if you like. It may well be, depending upon what the subject of the reaction is.
    I will call it reciprocal.
    Sufficient for your selective and objective moral outrage Oleg? If you find such an argument 'repugnant', then you should look to it's source to vent your spleen at.
    Better yet, address the issue at hand. You take issue, then state your position.
    Playing victim will get you nowhere with me, either, Oleg.
    Argue the points, for points with Rex.
    Rant about the Pope, and I will call it a RANT.
    Finally, Oleg, your comments on my/Anon's education: I suspect you know neither of us.
    We could BOTH hold more credentials than you. We could both be children putting on fancy airs. You certainly don't know me.
    Anon is Anonymous for a reason. I am CrusadeRex for a reason.
    I suggest we are probably both well educated and perhaps even of position. But that is only ever going to be conjecture for you and the readers. That is the nature of forums like the Blogs.
    My assertion regarding education is one I follow as well.
    I may, in some roles, educate and train.
    But, I will forever be a STUDENT foremost.
    So my education (and hopefully Anon's) is an ongoing venture. I simply encourage him to speed the process up in the areas concerned.
    'Repugnant', eh? Made my morning :P
    That is what passes for polite in my circles.
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thanks for clarifying your position, crusadeREX. I will ignore your comments in what follows.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Mike,
    Re:Spam. I had to break up and repost my comments this AM on your earlier post "Why I am a Christian", otherwise the just vanished. Strangeness on blogger? Perhaps we could get a tautology on the issue?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Then tell me, who is the leader of not-believing-in-Santa?
    ___________________________

    Are you saying that hypothetical groud of santa disbelievers are analogous to Atheism ??? Duuuude... of course not XD. Santa doesn´t have single argument... rational argument at least in his favor. Without saying that as fas as I know its early form is a Propaganda move... Well anyway, I don´t really see people get mad at santa, or people that believe in Santa. Atheism and Santa disbelieve are two different groups in their social context
    --------------------------------

    You don't ask for much, do you?

    ________________________________

    I am challenging your intimidation XD dude or gurl. but anyway, I want you to do something too... Think really hard about those things. but for yourself!!! not what religious people say not what anti-religion people say, but ask yourself truly about every assertion you make about religion and other things and investigate. Isn´t that what inquisitive people try to do ? Not telling you to become a Christian ... just to re-think... re-think.
    -----------------------------------------
    A ridiculous expectation, no? Am I expected to have no opinion about any matter unless it is proven to be absolutely true or false? My opinion is evidence-based, and evidence tells me that things are true or false.

    ____________________________________

    How God came to exist XD would´t be against a absolute entity XD ???

    Yeah... and what are the guarantees that you see evidence with a unbiased view ???

    Or that you have considered all the evidence or even perhaps that you on purpose over look evidence.

    many things could be in between huh ?

    -------------------------------------

    Or I can choose to believe the words of a millenia-old book which condones some of the most hideous and immoral acts I've ever read.
    ______________________________

    Read history Books XD you will get AMAZED!!!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Oleg,
    Feel free to do so, if it makes you feel more comfortable. I know I can be a bit intense. I had attempted subtlety, but you called me out. So I just said it like I see it. If that is too much for you, then so be it.
    I will, however, continue to comment on these blogs as I see fit, or unless the Blogger himself asks me to stop.
    If your comments strike me as interesting, I will comment on them too, Oleg.
    I apologize in advance if that upsets you, as that is not my intention in 'being here'.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Why don't you give us an example of a "practical conclusion" that was drawn because people assumed that the world is made by God and could not have been drawn without that assumption. I've heard that many times from many people but once I ask them to provide specific examples they retreat.

    _________________________________

    Heyyy my comment XD was posted ? XD lol I thought it got stuck.

    Well Newton himself man. Was his faith in God that directed him to study the world.

    For instance God as a Lawgiver... therefore... the world have laws. It is rational and plausible conclusion if you think that God is.

    Or maybe universes with Sentient beings is also a possibility if God is and has created the Universe based own his essence let´s say. And since God knows himself... it makes sense to have sentient being ina possible creation.

    Or morality...in this case if God is ground for morality, morality will most likely be part of His creation.

    yeah you can draw many conclusions. This is not just necessarily for God, you could use other Deities. But conclusions likes these are possible and may be proved correct.


    Now without the conclusion that God exists... well yeah maybe physics... or maybe going from kinematics fo dynamics. you know trying to explore what are the causes. Perhaps... without the idea of transcendence in our mind, we would most likely ignore cause and effect

    ReplyDelete
  71. Just had a funny thought! :P
    Oleg wrote:
    "Thanks for clarifying your position, crusadeREX. I will ignore your comments in what follows."

    Well! That puts me in Divine company doesn't it?
    LOL
    Me so punny!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Edward wrote:
    " without the idea of transcendence in our mind, we would most likely ignore cause and effect"

    This is an extremely important point, Edward.
    I would also add that the fact the concept of transcendence is UNIVERSAL, and it's existence in our mind shows the original question
    ("Why don't you give ...retreat.") is logically flawed. Theses concepts, now deemed unnecessary to scientific inquiry, saturated all thought for millennia and into obscurity. Literally all pursuit of knowledge has been / is coloured by a belief in purpose and meaning.
    The more correct question would be:
    "Give us some concrete examples of science that has no philosophical nor religious foundations (ie NONE) and has had no persons of any faith in purpose or a God, or a member of a religion of any sort that influenced their course. Feel free to consult the entire historical record."
    When the onus is shifted, we see the real weight of the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Edward:

    I found one of your posts in the spam filter and rescued it.

    Sorry about that. I wish there was something I could do about it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. hahaha it is okay Doctor XD...

    You know to be sincere ... these discussions take a toll on me XD.

    I mean I like discussing these things, but I know I am not cut out to be a debater XD

    ReplyDelete
  75. You do well, Edward. You make some very good points on these pages.
    I, for one, enjoy reading your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  76. [You do well, Edward. You make some very good points on these pages.
    I, for one, enjoy reading your comments.]

    I agree with crusadeRex. And it goes for all of the commenters here. Everyone makes good points (even the points I disagree with!) and I really enjoy the discussions. Please don't take any of the acrimony personally. These are hot-button issues, and any heat (or even rudeness, for which I apologize) is about the issues, not the people, who are all thoughtful people with the insight and courage to participate.

    Thanks, folks.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  77. hahaha ... Thanks people XD I appreciate that some things that I say are foudn to be good. I wish I could always say good things so all could think and not hate.

    I mean I asked these whole prove it questions, but deep down I want people to have thoughts. I mean I imagine Socrates asking people, are you sure of that, is that always that way. I mean basic questions... but very people do them.

    And science controversies... oh those are where I like the most seriously XD... philosophy and theology are kind of hard for me, because so much has been that in those fields, but science for me, I feel like I can grasp it's main ideas, make them into rules or concepts. But deep down I see nobody like to see science THAT way, not as a proccess or an attempt to discover but rather as a undeniable truth made by our priests (Scientists XD in this case)

    You know; what I am against... is Science as Dogma. And knowing the philosophy behind it is key to see science the way it was conceived by its researchers, theorists, experimenters and inventors. It is funny I think, how Science is so close to faith, I mean where else but in religion we see people so committed to a set of truths huh ? XD

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Edward

    "Atheism and Santa disbelieve are two different groups in their social context"

    Perhaps you're right. If the majority of the world believed in Santa, and raised their children to worship Santa, and built buildings where everybody could pray to Santa, and killed in Santa's name, THEN the comparison would be far more appropriate.

    "Guess people like you Anon... have been too much doctrinized in Scientism by teachers."

    Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't believe anything without being absolutely certain of it.

    For example, I choose to believe that evolution is true. Do you insist that I research every piece of evidence that supports and refutes the theory of evolution before forming an opinion, lest I be labelled a follower of scientism? Would you have me conduct my own experiments, because the incredibly huge body of evidence might have all been falsified?

    I did not say that I accepted every thing that comes from a scientist's mouth, but when theories are built with mountains of evidence to support them, to a point where they can predict what they will or will not find, then yeah, I believe it. As for newer studies, of course I will look critically at the methodology and the potential flaws before blindly accepting it.

    What gets me is that people don't apply this kind of critical reasoning to their religions. The main arguments for God are filled with holes and logical fallacies. When I hear stuff like "everything has a cause, therefore God must have caused everything, even though he doesn't have a cause", I don't even know how to begin explaining the problems with it, because the person obviously thinks like a child.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Perhaps you're right. If the majority of the world believed in Santa, and raised their children to worship Santa, and built buildings where everybody could pray to Santa, and killed in Santa's name, THEN the comparison would be far more appropriate.

    ______________________________________

    Don't forget the angry people that say that Santa doesn't exist XD. They are part of the whole deal!

    --------------------------------------

    Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be of the opinion that we shouldn't believe anything without being absolutely certain of it.

    ______________________________________

    Well not really. You should believe things or accept them after critical analysis. For instance should we critically analyse Relativity to accept it? Well you see there is a nuance, between simply accepting because it works or because you were told so, and analysing yourself gives the confidence. Not absolute confidence but the enough confidence to champion an idea when challenged or to proper understand that idea, wouldn't you say so ?

    ----------------------------------------

    For example, I choose to believe that evolution is true. Do you insist that I research every piece of evidence that supports and refutes the theory of evolution before forming an opinion, lest I be labelled a follower of scientism? Would you have me conduct my own experiments, because the incredibly huge body of evidence might have all been falsified?
    _________________________________________

    Not exaclty a follower of Scientism XD. Right I see what you mean. Let say this way. You accpet the Theory of Evolution. And I challenge the Theory of Evolution ( Neo-Darwinism ) in this case. Now, you don't have necessarily to be Ph.D to defend your idea, but you need to have a good grasp on the subject, for instance in the case of Brain evolution, or our own evolution. See someone says that dating in the ricks could be wrong. Now it is okay, even after the guy's huge argumentation for you to maintain that they are correct, you are not obligated to change your mind! But what if... that is where the search begins XD. Forgive me for mine harshness of words... but deep down investigation plays a good role in science and in knowledge n_n!
    -------------------------------------

    I did not say that I accepted every thing that comes from a scientist's mouth, but when theories are built with mountains of evidence to support them, to a point where they can predict what they will or will not find, then yeah, I believe it. As for newer studies, of course I will look critically at the methodology and the potential flaws before blindly accepting it.

    What gets me is that people don't apply this kind of critical reasoning to their religions. The main arguments for God are filled with holes and logical fallacies. When I hear stuff like "everything has a cause, therefore God must have caused everything, even though he doesn't have a cause", I don't even know how to begin explaining the problems with it, because the person obviously thinks like a child.

    ___________________________________________

    Well in the example you showed me... Darwinian evolution I suppose, its predictions are very small and fully dependent on other theories and models.

    Show the fallacies buddy XD. Maybe you think like a child... personal attacks and claims withour arguments do not make good arguments.

    Yeah that what you did is a fallacy ... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  80. everything has a cause, therefore God must have caused everything, even though he doesn't have a cause

    __________________________

    Sorry the Spam filter got my last comment n_n!

    but that is hardly the argument ... go to William Lane Craig's site and get the Kalam Argument, so you can make good objections

    ReplyDelete
  81. Perhaps you're right. If the majority of the world believed in Santa, and raised their children to worship Santa, and built buildings where everybody could pray to Santa, and killed in Santa's name, THEN the comparison would be far more appropriate

    ____________________________________

    I will re post the whole thingm this time smaller XD.

    Yeah but you have to remember that you need the angry disbelievers otherwise is not really analogous situation XD

    ----------------------------------------

    Do you insist that I research every piece of evidence that supports and refutes the theory of evolution before forming an opinion, lest I be labelled a follower of scientism?
    _____________________________________

    Well not really a follower. Let me put this way. If I wereor you were to make an argument, and someone, in this case me, would object about certain ideas of the argument. Now you don't have to accept the argument, at least that is how I feel things should go. But you, in case you want to investigate or champion an idea need to critically analyse something don't you think??? Imagine if were to keep saying that you are an atheist and connect atheism to so many things and I absolutely back none of my assertions! That is intimidation not a discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  82. to a point where they can predict what they will or will not find, then yeah, I believe it
    ______________________________

    In the case of Evolution ??? Well it depends entirely on other theories to work it's predictions, is not all that great on that area

    -----------------------------

    everything has a cause, therefore God must have caused everything, even though he doesn't have a cause",

    __________________________________

    Nive straw men attack ... is that the fallacy ??? creating a argument that was never made and refuting it ????

    well that is also a fallacy o_o just saying!

    ReplyDelete
  83. "Damon Fowler is a atheist jerk who used legal threats to bully his school district."

    +1

    "Damon Fowler pointed out to somebody that his school was doing something unconstitutional..."

    Nonsense. There is a distinct difference between the actual text of the Constitution and judicial midrashim.

    ReplyDelete