FYI: this post has been moved here.
Continue reading Positive Atheism - Cliff Walker : Weak Bible Week Poster, part 5 of 7...
11/26/08
11/25/08
11/24/08
11/23/08
11/22/08
11/20/08
11/19/08
11/18/08
11/16/08
11/13/08
11/10/08
New Hitchens debate
Link here.
This must be the 5th debate I've fully listened to, but it isn't for substance that I keep coming back to Hitchens. The man, quite simply, is charisma embodied. I just can't quite you, Chris.
I have a feeling that many of you enjoy Chris Hitchens for other reasons- perhaps you think his arguments are sound or something along those lines. I'm offering a challenge. Change my mind about the merits of his arguments by formulating them in some kind of systematic fashion (a numbered syllogism would do just fine) and provide evidence for the important steps. I'll take the top submissions and dedicate a post for each of them to spur discussion.
If you are regulars here, tell your atheist friends that they are welcome to offer their own interpretations of Hitchens's arguments. I'm not doing this to be inflammatory or arrogant, but I really want to know why aside from a masterful, sardonic wit, people think he is a serious threat to the veracity of theistic belief.
Go nuts everyone.
Continue reading New Hitchens debate...
This must be the 5th debate I've fully listened to, but it isn't for substance that I keep coming back to Hitchens. The man, quite simply, is charisma embodied. I just can't quite you, Chris.
I have a feeling that many of you enjoy Chris Hitchens for other reasons- perhaps you think his arguments are sound or something along those lines. I'm offering a challenge. Change my mind about the merits of his arguments by formulating them in some kind of systematic fashion (a numbered syllogism would do just fine) and provide evidence for the important steps. I'll take the top submissions and dedicate a post for each of them to spur discussion.
If you are regulars here, tell your atheist friends that they are welcome to offer their own interpretations of Hitchens's arguments. I'm not doing this to be inflammatory or arrogant, but I really want to know why aside from a masterful, sardonic wit, people think he is a serious threat to the veracity of theistic belief.
Go nuts everyone.
Continue reading New Hitchens debate...
11/8/08
11/6/08
11/2/08
Nietzsche Nails Atheism, Again
Please note that this essay will now be housed in True Freethinker’s section on Atheism
Continue reading Nietzsche Nails Atheism, Again...
Continue reading Nietzsche Nails Atheism, Again...
10/30/08
10/28/08
10/27/08
10/21/08
10/16/08
10/14/08
10/11/08
A Quick Note on Politics
Normally I don't discuss politics, however I found some recent events to be kind of interesting. Many of you might have noticed all of the ruckus over a video of Sarah Palin making a speech in a church, in which she supposedly says that our military action in Iraq is God's will.
This of course got secularists all in a tizzy, since they are already worried that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing more than a Christian-Muslim religious conflict.
Expand/Dexpand
Continue reading A Quick Note on Politics...
This of course got secularists all in a tizzy, since they are already worried that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is nothing more than a Christian-Muslim religious conflict.
Expand/Dexpand
Continue reading A Quick Note on Politics...
10/9/08
10/8/08
10/6/08
10/4/08
10/3/08
Silly Walks, Salient Points...
There's been a lot of attempts (at least on my part) to remind everyone here that atheism and theism are both worldviews that depend a lot on your personal assumptions. More to the point, atheists are just as likely to choose that belief for irrational, emotional and selfish reasons as a theist is to choose theirs.
Leave it to a comedian to frame that with clever humor. Check out Cleese's spoof of reductionist materialism, especially the blue ribbon riff from about 1:35 on.
Leave it to a comedian to frame that with clever humor. Check out Cleese's spoof of reductionist materialism, especially the blue ribbon riff from about 1:35 on.
“Galileo - A Story of a Hero of Science”
Please note that this essay has been moved to True Freethinker where it was posted at this link.
Continue reading “Galileo - A Story of a Hero of Science”...
Continue reading “Galileo - A Story of a Hero of Science”...
10/2/08
A special place?
Though I have not read his works, Guillermo Gonzalez is an Intelligent Design supporter who wrote a book called 'The Privileged Planet'. The basic premise behind this book, as I understand it, is that the Earth holds a special place in the universe which makes it uniquely conducive to scientific discoveries.
There is a theory that explains the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion through a void of matter in our local region. According to this article, this theory thus far could not be distinguished from the dark matter theory by experiment, but that may change in the future.
+/-
Continue reading A special place?...
There is a theory that explains the apparent acceleration of the universe's expansion through a void of matter in our local region. According to this article, this theory thus far could not be distinguished from the dark matter theory by experiment, but that may change in the future.
+/-
It is interesting to see how assumptions that we don't hold a special place in the universe can disrupt viable theories as much as assumptions that we do in all ways hold a special place. It was a mistake to think that the sun revolved around the earth, and we now know that what we observe is much better explained by a heliocentric model. But being mistaken in one (or more instances) does not mean we should always assume we are not in a special place. Nor should we always assume we are. I think the theist is in a unique position here. For the atheist, it would seem strange and improbable that we should be in an atypical place in the universe. For the theist, however, it is an open question. In some ways our location may be typical, in other ways atypical. We simply don't know until we look.
Important note: I'm not suggesting that the void explanation mentioned holds any value or merit over dark matter. It's just an idea for now, with no evidence that I'm aware of to distinguish it. I mention it merely as a springboard for discussion, and as an interesting look into the future directions astrophysics may take.
Continue reading A special place?...
10/1/08
Science and Philosophy
Some recent comments on here have piqued my interest in the relationship between science, religion and philosophy. Concurrently, friend, blogger and podcaster Glenn Peoples has released a new podcast on Intelligent Design (kind of) that explores this relationship, and I think it is well worth a listen.
Again, downloading it rather than streaming it would be appreciated.
Continue reading Science and Philosophy...
Again, downloading it rather than streaming it would be appreciated.
Continue reading Science and Philosophy...
9/29/08
Ed Feser's Review of "Breaking the Spell"
I am really liking Edward Feser as of late. His areas of interest coincide nearly perfectly with my own- from libertatianism to atheism to the philosophy of mind. Due to that unique mixture, he consistently provides an emerging view of anarcho-Catholics that is stimulating and refreshing for we Protestant-types. In any case, I stumbled across this review of Dan Dennett's recent book.
Clicky
Enjoy!
Continue reading Ed Feser's Review of "Breaking the Spell"...
Clicky
Enjoy!
Continue reading Ed Feser's Review of "Breaking the Spell"...
9/25/08
"Look Who's Irrational Now"
Interesting recent article from Mollie Ziegler Hemingway entitled, Look Who's Irrational Now
In part, she states:
Continue reading "Look Who's Irrational Now"...
In part, she states:
"The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us….Surprisingly, while increased church attendance and membership in a conservative denomination has a powerful negative effect on paranormal beliefs, higher education doesn't. Two years ago two professors published another study in Skeptical Inquirer showing that, while less than one-quarter of college freshmen surveyed expressed a general belief in such superstitions as ghosts, psychic healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, clairvoyance and witches, the figure jumped to 31% of college seniors and 34% of graduate students."
Continue reading "Look Who's Irrational Now"...
9/18/08
9/10/08
9/6/08
My Final Treatise
It has been some time since I have recorded my thoughts here on AID. I must admit that I feel ashamed to have not kept in contact much with my team here, nor with our readers. The reasons for my absence are many, but are the product of one in particular which I believe many will find obvious by the end of this article; something that has taken up the majority of my minds time and patience these past couple of months.
+/-
Continue reading My Final Treatise...
+/-
I have been studying and seeking in other fields of philosophy so as to craft a finer mind of my own and to understand the world around me more clearly. At the same time, these studies have led me on a new spiritual journey for the sake of truth and inner peace. In this article I hope to give some brief thoughts of my own regarding the topic that this blog represents: Atheism. I only hope that these fragments of thoughts are clear, being granted as a rational position by my fellow Theists and the opposition alike. I must confess that many of my thoughts were influenced by the likes of individuals such as Antony Flew, Alvin Plantinga, Scott Hahn, and the much older, yet still powerfully convincing Descartes: my personal thinking hero.
My philosophical journey began with my studies in Metaphysics and the particular method known as Existentialism. I had also begun to re-examine the Argument From Design (should be changed to the Argument TO Design, rather), noting before that I had always considered it one of the weaker arguments for the existence of God. It was with great surprise that I began to find the Design Argument to be perhaps the best of the argument for Gods existence, but not in the same way that many people conceive of it today. Combining my insights with those who promote arguments from reason, such as Alvin Plantinga and the former C.S. Lewis, and other such arguments such as the rationalists views of Descartes and the Existentialists views of Thomas Aquinas, I came to understand some things that have always been right in front of me. Or, should I say that they were always inside of me? Ingrained deep within my psyche and as my psyche? Could it have not been clearer before? The existence of God is so clear that I think any man, woman, or child would literally have to not be in order to miss it or lying to themselves, or confused about what they really think of reality.
Knowing that one exist is the absolute first certain thing that man can come to know. It is the only thing that can be proven by first being doubted. It is by doubt that self-existence is proven. From here we reason that we can think; that we are thinking things. In order to move further from this we must understand that we can examine the world around us and that we can interpret the world. We can also make choices and we can decide between those choices, seemingly uninhibited by the laws of nature themselves. And if we are to deny the freedom of choice and say that our minds are dictated by the material, then we can no longer accept that we or anyone else is rational, for rationality needs free will to be considered as such. No man can reason to the truth if reason does not exist and is merely something chosen for us. A man who thinks himself wise for destroying his own wisdom is the greatest fool of all. Needless to say, this is why Atheists are foolish in their thinking, but we have yet to conclude that in the following examination. Let us continue.
Taking this idea further, let us conclude what Descartes concluded, that the effect must have something of the cause. The cause must be greater than the effect in the sense that it created the effect. It must possess a lack of limitation that the effect has. Let us consider a conversation I had recently with a fellow Agnostic friend of mine. She had stated to me that the Universe could have come from the result of several causes acting on one another, sort of like a gradualist evolutionary process. She said that a cause “greater” than the Universe we see today was not necessary. But all I needed to do to upset this sort of thinking was ask her a very obvious thing: What then are we to make of that thing that was able to organize all those other causes to create the universe we have today? Shall we continue to suggest that smaller factors simply continued to pile on top of one another ad-infinitum? Where we have many things working together we must have something greater to make them do this. This is only reasonable. And for those out there that think an infinite regress is a plausible idea, I believe they have no good reasons for supposing such a thing exist. For if this were the case, then all justification would go out the window, there would be no reason to suppose that the Universe we have today came from those chain of causes. Note the following, that if there were such thing as an infinite regress, the Universe we have today would not exist. For the Universe we live in is set on a foundation that we can observe and understand. If such foundations were the result of an ever-changing, contingent chain of events, we would not be alive today to notice such things, for the very smallest change in the Universe and its patterns would destroy us all.
Going on with the idea of a “greater cause” over that of its effects, we must therefore conclude that if we consider ourselves rational creatures with the capabilities of design and purpose, that the cause of us must equally if not moreso, possess the same attributes. Even if we were to say that we create our own meaning, purpose, and objectives, and that design is simply a small function of human survival, we must conclude, rationally, that the ultimate reality possesses or at least can possess similar features. If not, then we claim that we are greater than that which has caused us or we concede the most irrational belief that the effects of causes do not hold similar like features of those causes, disrupting our idea of cause and effect forever.
It is by self-examination and the obvious understanding of human thought that we can conclude these things. It is by the empirical observation of the inner-self, that proves as the greatest evidence of design. From evidence of design, free will, rationality, etc. comes the logical conclusion of that which is greater than ourselves: The Ultimate Reality, which is God. And the only way for an Atheist to deny this evidence is to deny his or herself. It is from this denial that the label of “fool” is so adequate and not simply because of the mere denial of the existence of God. It is the denial of the freedom of choice, the rational mind, and the entire human person that is most foolish, because such things are the greatest evidence of belief. And of course, the Atheist will scoff at such an idea and call these things mere illusion, but if they are to do so they must similarly conclude that the human person, not as a body, but as a mind is an illusion, and all their thoughts and all their objections to the Theists are meaningless portrayals of chemical reactions bubbling their way to the surfaces of absurdity.
It is with this basic understanding that I have concluded that there is no longer any reason to argue with such disbelievers. I have eased my mind and made it clear to myself that there is no longer any reason, for the man who denies God denies himself, and the man who denies himself never sees God. It is not even a paradox, but a self-justifying circularity, much like the doubting of self-existence. I can see nothing more clear than this. I can see no other way. For those that argue over times, dates, the function of cells, the morals of the world, and all other things I simply smile and look the other way. It is a waste of time. For it should be obvious without such nonsense arguments. We have no need to use such things. The greatest evidence, the greatest witness, is within us and is us. We need nothing else to show these truths! Why have I wasted my time for so long till now? And I know that even now I may be wasting my time, as my opponents will think themselves clever by telling me how I evolved and where I came from. Shame on them for thinking that these things have any bearing on what I have stated, as though I deny my own evolutionary history simply because I am a Theists, or that I need to be told this because it is somehow relevant to the obvious conclusion of accepting the human person as it really is: a thinking thing. And however you view a “thinking thing”, you must logically conclude, if you are truly using reason and not mere emotions, that there is a greater. There is no other conclusion if one is to use their reason.
And it should be clear that to accept the mind as the brain, as a physical entity, one has destroyed their own wisdom. They should feel ashamed for even trying to argue such a thing, for they have made themselves the most obvious of fools and have made my argument the only rational conclusion, because they have discarded rationality for the absurd conclusion of determined mindsets.
I am finally at peace with myself and I have no need to argue this any longer. For this is the approbation of my delusion. It is who I am. It is all that I can be. And it is by the great knowledge and power of Allah that I have come to be helped in reaching these conclusions. And it is with this understanding of Allah that I must also leave this blog as its administrator and contributor, as I am no longer within the same Theological circle as my fellow brothers here on AID, so gifted as they are and so well intended. I only give thanks to all of you who have stuck through with this blog and made it the great place it is.
And it is with this final treatise that I say farewell to you all. Much love and blessings and may Allah guide you towards the straight path.
Assalaamu Alaykum
-M-
Continue reading My Final Treatise...
9/5/08
9/2/08
8/27/08
8/24/08
8/21/08
8/20/08
8/12/08
Please tell us about it!
There seems to be a general opinion amongst Atheists that they are the victims of severe abuse at the hands of Christians. I invite these who have experienced such abuse by Christians to tell us about it, the situation and the effect of the abuse, as well as the type of Christian(s) and their beliefs, if these facts are known.
Thanks in advance!
Continue reading Please tell us about it!...
Thanks in advance!
Continue reading Please tell us about it!...
Oops...An Upside-Down Analysis
A commenter from my first post mentioned an article from “Edge”, discussing the arguably growing world population of “disbelievers” (link here). The commenter was disputing my contentions that atheism, lived as fully as possible, has disastrous effects, rather than positive ones, and that consistent atheism is not compatible with human experience. The converse was a subtle contention of the linked article’s authors, but the more noteworthy point they made was accidental. In the midst of all the pseudo-intellectual psychobabble, Paul and Zuckerman manage to demonstrate just how unnatural irreligion – atheism in particular – really is to the human experience.+/-
Note, please, that in the course of this article the authors surreptitiously define “democratic, educated, and prosperous” nations, ad hoc, as those with near total social welfare systems and a strong endorsement of evolution. The sophomoric equating of “belief in evolution” with “disbelief in religion”, as though the two were mutually exclusive strains of thought, is indicative of a shallow grasp of the topic at hand. The rest of the analysis does not disappoint.
Question: if secularism in general, and atheism in particular, have something positive to offer humanity, if they have something resonant to add to the human condition, why then do they thrive only in times of ease, and wither in times of hardship? The authors continually note that only nations with expansive social welfare have pronounced levels of non-belief, and then make hysterically dense statements such as:
So, either we are to believe that the “default” condition of humanity is extensive state-run safety nets, or that Paul and Zuckerman need to pay more attention to their own line of thinking. Intentionally or not, they went to great lengths arguing that societies with more social “safety nets” are less spiritual, then suggest that this is a condition inherent to humanity.
Ironically, one of the major counter-points is the United States, still the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as one of the most religious. Of course, this fact doesn’t fit with the authors’ preconception that truly modern, educated people don’t believe in God. So, they do some silly rhetorical gymnastics to paint the US as an insecure, not-quite-so-free, not-quite-so-prosperous place. One of their complaints, apparently is that the barbaric Americans allow people to lose their jobs. All this really does, though, is highlight this notable flaw with secularism: it only survives where people feel their every need will ultimately be met by the state. Paul and Zuckerman seem to be saying, inadvertently, that a nation featuring anything less than total guarantees of material security won’t be particularly irreligious.
Atheism should feel a particular sting from this article’s analysis. The authors make a lot of mention of “irreligion”, or “nonreligion”, and relatively little of atheism proper. They note that atheists’ numbers are expanding, but their proportions are actually decreasing. Even in the most heralded “secular” European nations, sizable majorities still believe in some level of spirituality or religion. This should also be considered in light of the other means by which atheism spreads: naked force. Much of Europe is less than a generation removed from government-enforced irreligion, a phenomenon that requires time to heal.
The danger with this aspect of the relationship between social structures and irreligion is exactly in line with my contention about the dangers of atheism. Irreligion is only going to be common in places where the state exerts greater control over the lives of the citizens, one way or the other. Either the state provides for practically all material needs, so people follow the common inclination to brush aside a God they feel no need for; or, the state throttles religion out of the people with the heel of its boot.
As I’ve often noted, people tend to act out the fullness of their beliefs when faced with extreme hardship, and extreme authority. In either of the above cases, once God is truly rejected by moving from irreligion to actual atheism, the state moves from the ultimate civil authority to the ultimate authority, period. If that coincides with some real or imagined crisis…enter Stalin, Mao, and on and on and on.
So, if you haven’t already, read the complete article to get a useful, if accidental, perspective on just how disconnected atheism (and irreligion in general) actually are from natural human experience. If irreligion can’t survive without social security, and faith can exist both in prosperity and hardship, perhaps it’s not religion, but secularism, which is really on “life support”.
[also posted at Gladio Mentis]
Continue reading Oops...An Upside-Down Analysis...
The article doesn’t do much to dispel the notion that “hard” atheism is detrimental to society. That’s not their intent, though they repeatedly imply that progress and security are owed to secularization - a suggestion which is historically backwards. What the article does attempt to do is to show how freer, more prosperous societies tend to have lower rates of belief than less secure societies. The gradual spread of prosperity is followed by a general decline in religiosity.
Depending on your own views, this may or not may be controversial, but it’s an idea that Christianity, at least, has been well aware of for millennia. Jesus’ challenge to the rich young man, and His subsequent lament over the problem of wealth (Mark 10:21-23), demonstrates this idea clearly. Those with full stomachs and fat wallets tend (though not unavoidably) to falter into materialism of one stripe or another.
The article’s authors seem to miss the implications of their own data, though. The facts of history force a chronology into their assertion: a decline in religiosity follows an establishment of prosperity and security. They couldn’t rightly say that the decline comes first, since it doesn’t. This doesn’t say much about the societal value of overt irreligion. The article actually notes, quite blatantly, that non-belief struggles without a heavily supportive, pre-existing social structure:
“…secularism and disbelief do best in nations that are the most democratic, educated and prosperous…”
Note, please, that in the course of this article the authors surreptitiously define “democratic, educated, and prosperous” nations, ad hoc, as those with near total social welfare systems and a strong endorsement of evolution. The sophomoric equating of “belief in evolution” with “disbelief in religion”, as though the two were mutually exclusive strains of thought, is indicative of a shallow grasp of the topic at hand. The rest of the analysis does not disappoint.
Question: if secularism in general, and atheism in particular, have something positive to offer humanity, if they have something resonant to add to the human condition, why then do they thrive only in times of ease, and wither in times of hardship? The authors continually note that only nations with expansive social welfare have pronounced levels of non-belief, and then make hysterically dense statements such as:
“So much for the common belief that supernatural-based religiosity is the default mode inherent to the human condition.”
So, either we are to believe that the “default” condition of humanity is extensive state-run safety nets, or that Paul and Zuckerman need to pay more attention to their own line of thinking. Intentionally or not, they went to great lengths arguing that societies with more social “safety nets” are less spiritual, then suggest that this is a condition inherent to humanity.
Ironically, one of the major counter-points is the United States, still the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth, as well as one of the most religious. Of course, this fact doesn’t fit with the authors’ preconception that truly modern, educated people don’t believe in God. So, they do some silly rhetorical gymnastics to paint the US as an insecure, not-quite-so-free, not-quite-so-prosperous place. One of their complaints, apparently is that the barbaric Americans allow people to lose their jobs. All this really does, though, is highlight this notable flaw with secularism: it only survives where people feel their every need will ultimately be met by the state. Paul and Zuckerman seem to be saying, inadvertently, that a nation featuring anything less than total guarantees of material security won’t be particularly irreligious.
Atheism should feel a particular sting from this article’s analysis. The authors make a lot of mention of “irreligion”, or “nonreligion”, and relatively little of atheism proper. They note that atheists’ numbers are expanding, but their proportions are actually decreasing. Even in the most heralded “secular” European nations, sizable majorities still believe in some level of spirituality or religion. This should also be considered in light of the other means by which atheism spreads: naked force. Much of Europe is less than a generation removed from government-enforced irreligion, a phenomenon that requires time to heal.
The danger with this aspect of the relationship between social structures and irreligion is exactly in line with my contention about the dangers of atheism. Irreligion is only going to be common in places where the state exerts greater control over the lives of the citizens, one way or the other. Either the state provides for practically all material needs, so people follow the common inclination to brush aside a God they feel no need for; or, the state throttles religion out of the people with the heel of its boot.
As I’ve often noted, people tend to act out the fullness of their beliefs when faced with extreme hardship, and extreme authority. In either of the above cases, once God is truly rejected by moving from irreligion to actual atheism, the state moves from the ultimate civil authority to the ultimate authority, period. If that coincides with some real or imagined crisis…enter Stalin, Mao, and on and on and on.
So, if you haven’t already, read the complete article to get a useful, if accidental, perspective on just how disconnected atheism (and irreligion in general) actually are from natural human experience. If irreligion can’t survive without social security, and faith can exist both in prosperity and hardship, perhaps it’s not religion, but secularism, which is really on “life support”.
[also posted at Gladio Mentis]
Continue reading Oops...An Upside-Down Analysis...
8/11/08
Challenge to Atheists
[Also posted at atheism analyzed].
Atheists are de facto Materialists. Materialism is a necessary consequence of denying the supernatural. As Materialists they tend to revere empiricism as a source of truth. And they are convicted of their own possession of the singular truth of the universe, that there is no first cause.
Since Atheists have possession of the truth, they should not be adverse to sharing it here with us. The truth, of course, would be material and in the form of empirical experimental data, replicated by separate disinterested scientific teams, unfalsified, yet falsifiable, peer reviewed and published in a major scientific journal. These are criteria frequently cited by Atheists, and should be agreeable to them.
Here is a partial list items requiring material, empirical proof (See Rules below):
Note: If you can prove #4 (abiogenesis), there is $1,000,000.00 waiting for you here.
more below:
Continue reading Challenge to Atheists...
Atheists are de facto Materialists. Materialism is a necessary consequence of denying the supernatural. As Materialists they tend to revere empiricism as a source of truth. And they are convicted of their own possession of the singular truth of the universe, that there is no first cause.
Since Atheists have possession of the truth, they should not be adverse to sharing it here with us. The truth, of course, would be material and in the form of empirical experimental data, replicated by separate disinterested scientific teams, unfalsified, yet falsifiable, peer reviewed and published in a major scientific journal. These are criteria frequently cited by Atheists, and should be agreeable to them.
Here is a partial list items requiring material, empirical proof (See Rules below):
Note: If you can prove #4 (abiogenesis), there is $1,000,000.00 waiting for you here.
more below:
1. Prove there is no God.
2. Prove Materialism is true.
3. Prove Monism is true.
4. Prove abiogenesis actually happened.
5. Prove macroevolution actually happened.
6. Prove Parsimony is a Law of Nature.
7. Prove Universal Uniformitarianism exists in all cases.
8. Prove wisdom does not exist.
9. Prove humans are perfectible.
10.Prove universal happiness is a moral imperative.
11.Prove information is identical to the media scaffold upon which it resides.
12.Prove the Multiverse exists.
Rules:
1. Only empirical experimental data, replicated by separate disinterested scientific teams, unfalsified yet falsifiable, peer reviewed and published in a major scientific journal.
2. No generalities or philosophical meanderings will be accepted; only empirical (material) experimental proofs are allowed.
3. Truth by majority vote is not accepted; Truth by deferring to authority is not accepted.
Continue reading Challenge to Atheists...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
I myself, though I hadn't watched the video, was kind of wondering if Palin wasn't acting a little extreme based on all of the to-do. Then I stumbled upon this, which was rather enlightening, and which I thought our readers might appreciate as they (hopefully) educate themselves for the coming election.
There isn't much to say about that besides what Dr. Craig has already commented on, so I'll leave it at that.
However, on this same note, I would like to highlight a quote from Time Magazine which really struck me concerning the mindset of the voting public.
A woman being interviewed about her reasoning in this upcoming election was quoted as saying:
"Honestly, I don't know what to do. I really don't want to vote for McCain. You can tell he only cares about rich people. Sarah Palin wears glasses that cost $300. McCain's wife wears Gucci clothes. Which means they don't know anything about people like me." And continued with, "I hear that Obama's a Muslim. If he is a Muslim, that would be a problem, because the terrorists already attacked us." (source)
I'll start with the latter part of the quote. Notice first that this woman doesn't even know whether or not Obama is a Muslim (which he isn't), but is using this ignorance to counterbalance her desire to vote for him. Further, she then goes on to make the completely inexcusable mistake of basically stating that all Muslims are terrorists (by the way, they aren't).
Her reasoning for her distaste of the Republican ticket isn't much better. Palin wears $300 glasses? McCain's wife wears "Gucci clothes"? I won't speculate as to what this person might say if Sarah Palin, or McCain's wife, looked like slobs, but I'm sure you can imagine. Does she really think that there is no relatively wasteful personal spending on the Democratic side of the river? Furthermore, when the future of the country is (possibly) at stake, does it really matter?
To cut to the chase, I hope that people (no matter what side of the issue they fall on) are making more informed decisions than this. If you have time to browse the internet, and read blogs like this, you have time to educate yourself. Please, for the sake of others - if not yourself - take advantage of this.
It's rather disheartening to see people making decisions on these grounds, is it not?