Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Who's more hateful: the God-full or the godless?

David DiSalvo at Forbes asks the question:


Religion vs. Atheism: Which Side Can Rightly Claim to be Reasonable and Tolerant?
You may have noticed that the cold war between religious people and atheists has been seriously heating up the past few years. After the release of a spate of books from the so-called “new atheists” (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et al) a vicious war of words broke out in print, online, across the airwaves, and anywhere else people interact. And it’s only getting more intense.
The war, of course, has been going on for centuries—but now, with so many communication options available, it has migrated into venues accustomed to tamer exchanges.
Reasonable people, religious or otherwise, can agree to argue reasonably, without toxic assaults that only add to the rage. At least in theory. But the reality is that wherever these debates are happening, strong feelings overpower restraint. Hate mail, bile-laden comments and death threats are unfortunately not uncommon.
I was reminded of this again while reading a post from evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne on his blog Why Evolution is True (also the name of his book). From Coyne:
Perhaps some atheists have issued death threats against religious people, but I don’t know of any, and, at any rate, they must be much rarer than those aimed in the opposite direction.
Yesterday Blair Scott, communications director for American Atheists, was on the FOX News show America Live with Megyn Kelly. As soon as Scott returned home after the show, his inbox began filling up with hate mail and threats. Equally distressing, the Fox News Facebook page was soon inundated with death threats aimed at Scott and atheists in general, comments that are being taken down rapidly (see the report by William Hamby in the Atlanta Examiner)...
Coyne’s first statement intrigues me, and my inner-researcher wants to know if he’s right. Which side is responsible for most of the hate mail and death threats, the religious or the atheists? Who has the greater right to call themselves reasonable and tolerant?
It would be difficult, I think, to answer those questions quantitatively. But I’m betting there’s enough evidence out there that a fair qualitative estimate is reachable.
So let’s make this a community project. Please send me, or leave in the comments section, any information you think helps flesh-out an answer. I’ll take a look at everything you send, in addition to what I find, and report back with results in a future post.
Here's some information, Dave. Think of governing ideology as one big "community project". Let's take a look at countries governed by different religious/irreligious ideologies and compare political freedoms. We'll choose three categories: 1) Countries with established Christian churches or with long histories of cultural Christianity. 2) Countries with Islamic governments 3) Countries ruled by explicitly atheist political systems (for a significant portion of the 20th century).

 1) Countries with established Christian churches and/or with long histories of cultural Christianity:

 United States (cultural)
 Spain (cultural)
 Portugal (cultural)
 France (cultural)
 Italy (cultural)
 Switzerland (cultural)
 Denmark (cultural)
 Germany (cultural)
 Ireland (cultural)
 England (Established and cultural)
 Scotland (Established and cultural)
 Denmark (Established and cultural)
 Norway (Established and cultural)
 Finland (Established and cultural)
 Sweden (Established and cultural)
 Greece (Established and cultural)
 Costa Rica (Established and cultural)
 Liechtenstein (Established and cultural)
 Malta (Established and cultural)
 Monaco (Established and cultural)

2) Countries with Islamic governments:

Afghanistan
Algeria
Bangladesh
Brueni
Comoros
Egypt
Aceh
Jordan
Libyia
Maldives
Malaysia
Mauritnia
Morocco
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Tunisia
United Arab Emirates
Oman
Kuwait
Yemen
Bahrain
Somalia

3) Countries ruled by explicitly atheist political systems (for a significant portion of the 20th century).

China
Soviet Union 
Cuba
Laos
North Korea
Vietnam
Albania
Angola
Benin
Bulgaria 
Czechoslovakia 
Ethiopia
East Germany 
Hungary 
Kampuchea 
Mongolia
Mozambique
Poland 
Romania 
Yugoslavia 

So, let's consider:

Religion vs. Atheism: Which Side Can Rightly Claim to be Reasonable and Tolerant?

This is answer to your question, Dave: 

1) Christian regimes create reasonable and tolerant democracies. 

2) Islamic regimes create repressive theocracies.

3) Atheist regimes create totalitarian hellholes.

But you already knew that, Dave. So why ask the breathtakingly stupid question?




49 comments:

  1. hurr durr athiesm is evil!!! u are right, cristianity is teh only path to salvation!!! godless athiest hate G-d and will burn in hell

    ALL HAIL JEBUS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such a well thought out argument. Maybe you should look inside yourself and see what you find.

      Your can be free from your hatred. The Christ you mock is the Christ that loves you.

      Delete
  2. @Mike,
    All these guys have to complain about is their imaginary persecutors. No doubt half imaginary and as deep as the post above.
    Death camps and eugenics? Never mind those silly little inconveniences! Straw men are SO much safer that real living, breathing enemies. Unfortunately I have seen the same kind of engineered bravery in the military, and it is the result of cowardice. But let's not forget the primary demographic we are dealing with here: The NERDIEST nerds and their acolytes.

    @i love stalin
    Your pathetic attempts at imitating the most base minds in the Christian creed is nauseating. Lay off the bullshit. You achieve nothing with the statements.
    Nobody buys your thinly disguised bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael,

    Two of the countries in your first group (Spain and Portugal) were dictatorships for prolonged periods in the 20th century. Spain at least was brutal with woeful human rights for most of the time, and the regime was actively supported by the catholic clergy prior to its assumption of power in the civil war and during its rule.

    The third group includes just communist countries. Yugoslavia wasn't a hellhole during Tito's reign. The hell arose when Tito died and the ethnic hatred between the nations comprising Yugoslavia erupted after being suppressed for decades, ever since Yugoslavia was formed after the First World War.

    Vietnam as a hellhole was partly at least due to America's ill-conceived decision to replace France in preventing the nationalist communists from taking over the entire country, by waging an extremely destructive, expensive and in the end futile war.

    Actually, your lists fall into democracies (mainly secular, even America has a constitutional guarantee of separation of state and church) and dictatorships.

    So it's democracy that leads to human rights, not Christianity. There were plenty of Christian dictatorships in the past, including South and Central American ones actively supported by America in the later half of the 20th century as a bulwark against communism.

    Sorry, your claim that Christianity leads to reasonable and tolerant democracies doesn't fly for several reasons. It only applies to the last half of the 20 th century, and not to the preceding 16+ centuries when Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe, most of which wasn't exactly pleasant for most of the inhabitants.

    You take complex history and try to make it simpleminded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except that democracies arose in countries that were predominantly Christian, largely as a result of the Christian belief in the equality of all people before God.

      John I.

      Delete
  4. I suppose that when you are trying to make an untenable point, then your solution is to make shit up and hope no one notices. Because the lie lurking in your claims lies in the "cultural" Christian designation. If "cultural" Christianity is sufficient to create reasonable democracies (despite the fact that in many of the "cultural" Christian nations such as those in Scandinavia the trend is clearly away from faith, then explain why these "culturally" Christian nations somehow became (in your words) "hellholes":

    Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and other culturally similar components), Cuba, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, East Germany, Hungary,
    Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia.

    Somehow a culture of Christianity was unable to prevent them from becoming "hellholes". Based on the evidence at hand, Christian culture doesn't mean diddly-squat when it comes to establishing reasonable democracies.

    Unless you lie about it. But lying for Jesus is okay I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What anon above is saying is that when a people turns away en masse from the principles of Christianity which they once held, the blame lies squarely with Christianity.

    I suppose that if anon ever turns away from his own foolishness, then the blame will fall squarely on idiocy itself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh look, Michael is bullshitting again!

    By the way, you forgot to mention Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I come from Brazil. During the 60’s and 70’s most of South America witnessed unforgiving right wing dictatorship (with more than full support from the USA). The church was square behind them, adamantly and repeatedly affirming it was the will of God. The church knew that torture and kidnapping babies was common, but sided with capitalism instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is to that Church's shame that it supported such things. However, others within the church developed liberation theology, which was based on the teachings of Jesus and directly contrary to support for capitalism and dictatorships. Hence one cannot state that the church inherently supports dictatorships and unrestrained capitalism.

      John I.

      Delete
  8. "Yugoslavia wasn't a hellhole during Tito's reign"
    Death camps, genocides, decades of partisan killings? Sounds like a hell-hole to me.

    "...16+ centuries when Christianity was the dominant religion in Europe, most of which wasn't exactly pleasant for most of the inhabitants."
    Not exactly pleasant compared to WHAT? A Roman gladiatorial display? A Pagan blood sacrifice? An Islamic theocracy? The Aztec confederacy?

    I think perhaps you are referring to Feudalism being a less 'pleasant' form of governance that what we have today. You can thank progressive Christendom for that change.
    We crawl, we walk, we run. Sometimes we fall and need to crawl for a while, before we can walk and run again.
    Ideas evolve.


    You'll have a hard time finding that evolution/change beyond the places Christians have built, influenced, conquered, and controlled.
    Regarding the excesses of modern Franco types and various medieval regimes: They do not add up to a 10th of the whole.
    The Atheist regimes listed by Mike are the 100% total sum. ALL nasty.
    So simply put: Christian regimes CAN and ARE sometimes nasty and oppressive, but that is a perversion of the teachings of Christ. They are the exception - not the rule.
    Atheist regimes, so far, have ALL been nasty and oppressive. The rule - not the exception.
    It is quite simple from that angle.
    "You take complex history and try to make it simpleminded."
    I think Mike was pretty sure we would flush out the details in comments, Bach. I don't think he intended for his contrast to be made in a vacuum.
    But I agree, there is more to it than meets the eye. It is far more complex than a simple contrast of the two.
    Religion is often a tool for control. There are two ways to use this tool. One is to assume the mantle of religious authority. The other is to discredit religion in general and replace it with a new ideology.
    With religion their is always an orthodoxy to fall back on. Sooner or later the man who puts himself in God's place BLEEDS, and the illusion is destroyed. God returns to his place and morality is restored.
    Atheist regimes invent their own rules and call them 'science' and 'truth'. These rules are then used to 'liquidate' (a Tito term for you) their opponents. If history is to be our guide, then these regimes will also fall and suffer the same fate as the Theocrats. It seems to take a lot longer for culture and religion to return to these 'purged' zones, but it does eventually.
    It really comes down to the subjective nature of the morality and law imposed by such regimes... their arbitrary justice and codes.
    That subjectivity is a result of their of doctrinal ATHEISM.
    It IS pretty simple in the end: Atheism and politics are NOT a good mix.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What anon above is saying is that when a people turns away en masse from the principles of Christianity which they once held, the blame lies squarely with Christianity.

    The point sails over your head. Egnor has claimed countries like Denmark and Sweden as "culturally" Christian, despite the fact that they are overwhelmingly populated by nonbelievers. So he scores those as a "win" for Christianity despite the nonbelief of the population. Because it is convenient for him to make up facts in support of his argument.

    But if you are going to claim the "cultural" Christian nations like that, honesty demands that you claim them all. And then Egnor's argument collapses as the juvenile silliness that it is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not exactly pleasant compared to WHAT?

    A Greek democracy. They seemed to figure out a way to have a democratic system of governance without any help from your magical sky-daddy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean? They had multiple "sky daddies."

      Delete
  11. A funny thing is that, even assuming that Michael is right, it still doesn't show that his god is real.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Matteo: Resorting to non-sequiturs now?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm quite interested in your answer. So what's your answer?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Matteo: Explain why it matters first. Would resolving whether you have free will or not change anything you do?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Would resolving whether you have free will or not change anything you do?

    If the opinion that one has no free will would cause one to become fatalistic about things, then of course. Having lived both sides of the divide I affirm that it changes everything.

    The question matters because if one does not really believe in it (which I've certainly found to be the case with most atheists--their attempts to kill the question with endless qualifications attests to that), then I would question why any atheist would be filled with such mockery and vitriol toward his opponents, who, like the rocks, the wind, and the rain, could not possibly do other than what they do. It would strike me as insane to be filed with mockery and derision toward rocks, wind, and rain, and any other entities whose states are wholly determined by chance and law, and I wonder that atheists can't seem to follow through on their own alleged philosophy.

    And if you do in fact believe in free will, without the need to qualify the concept out of existence, I'd have to ask you where in a universe ruled by law and chance it could possibly come from?

    I have yet to see any coherent answers from atheists on these questions, so here's your chance.

    Unfortunately, I won't be able to rejoin this conversation until this evening...perhaps that will allow the opportunity for you to explicate your views without interruption from me, should that be your desire.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And if you do in fact believe in free will, without the need to qualify the concept out of existence, I'd have to ask you where in a universe ruled by law and chance it could possibly come from?"

    If free will exists, I don't know where it comes from — but probably not from a cosmic dictator from a bronze-age myth.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the opinion that one has no free will would cause one to become fatalistic about things, then of course.

    I didn't ask that. I asked if knowing one way or the other would change what you do. You are evading the question.

    [T]hen I would question why any atheist would be filled with such mockery and vitriol toward his opponents, who, like the rocks, the wind, and the rain, could not possibly do other than what they do.

    This tells me you haven't thought through the question very much then. If an atheist does not believe in free will and believes in some form of determinism, then part and parcel of that belief is the idea that your experiences influence your behavior. New information will change the course of action you take. Introducing you to this information is intended to change your behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "A Greek democracy. They seemed to figure out a way to have a democratic system of governance without any help from your magical sky-daddy."
    My father is no longer alive, and when he was the time he spent in the sky was as a flight officer in the RAF. He was one of the few. That said, he did not form any civilizations. I got along great with my Dad, Granddad and uncles. I have a close relationship with my adult son, too. Dad's are fine by me.So, let's leave my poor old Dad out of this shall we? Yours too.
    Daddy is just not the all consuming, overriding issue here. At least for me...

    But to your 'point' on 'Greek Democracy'. Is that it? Is that your best shot? Goodness.
    Where to begin.
    Best to start with a quick history lesson:
    What you and I call democracy is NOT what the Greek experiment was.
    Nor was that experiment sustainable.
    Nor was it contemporaneous with the times we have discussed. There was no Hellenic city states during the period we are discussing.
    Kingdoms and Empires were expanding and with them ideology. Those that sprung from or adopted Christian ideologies are the founding states of our modern western world.
    That's just the way it went.
    Lastly, I do NOT think that you, in your modern, comfortable life find a 'pleasant' fit into late bronze and early iron age, Anon. Even if that was an actual alternative to the relatively modern Christian Kingdoms of the Middle Ages.
    All that physical activity, pain, death, fear. The sheer lack of latte coffees... my goodness.
    Let's get real here.
    I am a professional soldier with years of experience in the field. I have witnessed all sorts of suffering and done a bit myself. My friends say I remind the of the 'bad guy' in Avatar... but I am a WUSSY compared to almost every one those Bronze Age OR medieval folks.
    They road life bare-back. Blisters and all. Everyday was the real deal.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @crusadeREX: And yet for all your evasions and non-seuiturs, you completely failed to address the point that somehow ancient Greeks without the benefit of your precious cannibalistic death cult somehow managed to come up with democratic governments.

    In other words, all you've done is avoid the question. Typical for a lying, dishonest theist. Because lying for Jesus is apparently okay.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon said ...

    "magical sky-daddy."

    Don't ya just love it when atheists bring out their infantile version of God and make fools of themselves trying to use it as dissing screed?!

    This sounds like your average youtube commenter i.e. with IQ equal to shoe-size.

    Bravo anon, you win the Darwin award for "atheist copy/paste from youtube commenters" - of the year.
    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Gary H: Do better than "magic man did it all" and you might get more respect for your ideas. Boil all your theology down to its core, and that's all you are left with.

    ReplyDelete
  22. crusadeREX:
    "Let's get real here."

    Said the guy who believes in invisible sky wizards.


    The irony is strong with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "And yet for all your evasions and non-seuiturs, you completely failed to address the point that somehow ancient Greeks without the benefit of your precious cannibalistic death cult somehow managed to come up with democratic governments. [my emph]

    Nice! All that time on Xbox finally paid off for you, Anon.
    For everyone else who may read these hate/angst charged rants: The actual question is not this kids hypothetical (that he just invented).
    Rather it is this:
    'HOW the Greeks benefited from Christian thinking and philosophies over the centuries?'.
    This question could be expanded to any of the modern Western states and Kingdoms quite easily, and will result in the same answers.
    Have the lives of everyday Greeks improved since the second millennium Before Christ? YES.
    Can ANY of this improvement be attributed to the Greeks being within the realms of the comparably tolerant Christian influence? OF COURSE! Much of it is.
    This poor twit's question in it's original form is akin to challenging me to prove that science or the arts have advanced/improved in Greece in the last 3000 years and if they have to PROVE how they have helped the Greeks.... pathetic.

    Stop playing with your monism, Anon - you'll go blind....shit! It's too late.

    @Gary
    "Don't ya just love it when atheists bring out their infantile version of God and make fools of themselves trying to use it as dissing screed?! "
    I am beginning to think it is some sort of compulsion. Like something from the film 'Rain man'. The whole judge Wopner thing...you know?

    ReplyDelete
  24. This tells me you haven't thought through the question very much then. If an atheist does not believe in free will and believes in some form of determinism, then part and parcel of that belief is the idea that your experiences influence your behavior. New information will change the course of action you take. Introducing you to this information is intended to change your behavior.

    And part and parcel of my own belief system is that I will not allow myself to be programmed by a deterministic automaton. So anyone who does not actually believe in free will might as well stuff it as far as getting me to change my behavior or thinking.

    By the way, if free will does not exist, then what in the world could you possibly mean by "intended"?

    ReplyDelete
  25. If free will exists, I don't know where it comes from — but probably not from a cosmic dictator from a bronze-age myth.

    So you have no idea whether free will exists, or where it comes from. I'd say a lot more epistemic humility is called for on your part. You slam theists, when admittedly for all you know they might be absolutely right about where we get our free will.

    At least we have a coherent answer, and you've got...nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A gift for you from the wilderness of cyberspace Rev 12:6... Truth: There will be no rapture. http://thegoodtale.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/the-rapture/ Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9. Not one child of God will be put in a hell fire no matter what their sins. It never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer 7:31, Jer 19:5 and this is proven by the word of God at http://minigoodtale.wordpress.com. Prophecy is fulfilled, Rev 12:5, 13 the true word John 1:1 of God is delivered to the world as a witness and soon the end of this world as we know it will come. Prove all things.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Interesting how "such a breathtakingly stupid question" can generate so much discussion, huh? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Matteo
    "At least we have a coherent answer, and you've got...nothing."

    No you don't. You just have a baseless made-up story.

    ReplyDelete
  29. (bigot) anonymous wrote:
    "Typical for a lying, dishonest theist. Because lying for Jesus is apparently okay."
    I am glad your upset. It means your thinking and thinking is punitive to you lot. Take your punishment and be made better for it.

    NOTE: In the first part we could easily replace the word 'theist' with 'Jew', 'Muslim', 'B'hai','Hindu', or any such THEIST to add the human element to this vitriol. The second line is clearly directed at Christianity. Here we see the real face of his 'atheism': ANTI-Theism. He possesses a RAGE against the God (and probably entire culture) of his fathers (Daddy again), and expresses it in the above vulgarity.
    Obviously this is not a clear reflection of that culture, but a failing of all of us in his life that call themselves Christian.
    Here is a soul to pray for, if you pray.
    To wish well for if you do not.


    Herpes wrote:
    "Said the guy who believes in invisible sky wizards"
    Part of the work I do for Branch is to work with data from the NWS (that's where the DEW line used to be). I can assure you we have tracked no wizards in the sky...at least above the Arctic Circle. Have you mistaken me for a believer in Brujas? Or are you just talking more shit? The latter is my guess.

    What do YOU do, while not 'derping' and worshipping your penis? Please oblige my lunatic curiosity, and indulge us all!
    What is the spring from which your wisdom pours? A 'scientist'? A researcher of grand banalities?
    Perhaps a high school student?
    Please do tell us how a man waging a war against the sky wizard pays his bills.
    Still, never seen or heard mention of a 'sky wizard' and I consider myself quite well read...
    You sure that is not some sort of character from your comic books...er journals?
    Smoke em if you got em.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @crusadeREX
    Lolwat? This is completely incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Herpes,
    Okay I will translate into monist/idiot for you:
    "I do not believe in this sky wizard/dad, and so do not need to hate him. I think you smoke too much dope, read too much (low end) fiction, and need a real job. Get a life."
    That simple enough for you?
    Don't derp too hard on it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. And part and parcel of my own belief system is that I will not allow myself to be programmed by a deterministic automaton.

    You have no idea whether you are a deterministic automaton or not. Which makes your argument silly. The simple fact of the matter is that as a practical matter it does not matter whether you have free will or not. There's no way to know. Thus, it is an entirely irrelevant question. It is merely a smokescreen used by religious apologists to avoid questions they don't actually want to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Okay I will translate into monist/idiot for you:
    "I do not believe in this sky wizard/dad, and so do not need to hate him. I think you smoke too much dope, read too much (low end) fiction, and need a real job. Get a life."


    So you are coming out as an atheist then.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 'HOW the Greeks benefited from Christian thinking and philosophies over the centuries?'.

    As Christian "thinking and philosophies" is pretty much just lifted from Greek sources wholesale, I think you have this backwards.

    But as usual, lying for Jesus is apparently okay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which Christian thinking came from Greek sources? And what are those Greek sources?

      Delete
  35. Your fact checking needs work:

    Bangladesh is a parliamentary democracy. Comoros is a federal republic. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy, like many of those European nations you touted. Malaysia is also a constitutional monarchy. The Maldives is a presidential republic with an elected president.

    Aceh isn't a country. It is a subdivision of Indonesia, which is a constitutional republic. Funny how the country with the most Muslims in the world didn't get onto your list. Perhaps because it didn't fit your fairy tale version of reality? Life is so much harder when reality intrudes on your sweeping generalizations and lies.

    ReplyDelete
  36. So countries that are deeply Christian are just as likely to fall in step behind dictators and allow their governments to become oppressive as any other culture.

    And on average the most peaceful and egalitarian cultures today are also those where the highest percentage of the population identify as non religious.

    This is dishonest line of reasoning, Michael. It is now, and it has been all the many times before when you've used it. In spite of what you learned in catechism, repeating a falsehood often enough does not make it real or true.

    But, you'll get forgiven for your little transgressions with the truth, won't you?

    Now, I will add my personal data to answer what Mr. Scott actually asked. I've received emails from three different individuals who threatened me. Two threatened only me, and one threatened my whole family. All three did so in the name of Christ. By contrast, I've never threatened anyone.

    So in the race to see who is most irrational, dangerous and threatening, that's Christians 3, atheists 0.

    If you ever get around to honestly attempting to address Mr. Scott's question, Michael, you can add those numbers to the tally.

    Have a wonderful day.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Skeptic: My roof collapsed in the storm.

    Believer: It was cursed by that woman, Marjorie. She's a witch. That's the only explanation.

    Skeptic: Well, I'm not sure why it did.

    Believer: HA! Well at least I have a coherent answer. You've got NOTHING.


    Sound familiar, Matteo?


    I just don't understand you people who believe in a God who is omniscient, who by definition knows EXACTLY what will happen from now to eternity, and yet you're the ones arguing that you have free will! It makes no sense.

    Don't you see that your argument makes no difference whatsoever. In every practical way, you are free to choose your path, even though your God already knows what you'll do.

    In every practical way I am free to choose my path, even though the energy and matter of the universe "know" what I will do.

    It's all the same untestable, unwinnable, and totally pointless argument.

    Have a wonderful day!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Right. Witches, the Ground of Being.

    Completely identical to the fevered atheist imagination.

    Energy and matter don't "know" what you are going to do under your philosophy, they "determine" what you are going to do. Don't you know the difference?

    If the argument is untestable and unwinnable, then why are you participating in it?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ground of Being

    You realize that this is a pointless, made-up concept with no relationship to reality, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Right. Reality has no ground.

    Are you insane?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Matteo: Reality is. Why do you think it needs magic to explain it?

    ReplyDelete
  42. How does recognizing that there must be some uncaused cause and that the greater cannot come from the lesser (mind from matter, tightly integrated information-processing nanomachinery from nothing but an exceedingly finite cloud of quarks and photons, genuine free will from determinism and chance) amount to magic? I would think that the refusal to base one's metaphysics on these principles amounts to magic.

    ReplyDelete