Reason Is A Religion…
…with none of the defining characteristics of a religion. It is because Vox Day says so in Chapter 4, entitled “The Religion of Reason.” Aside from the humorous comparison between an atheist politician and a “toothless, illiterate, homosexual Afro-Hispanic crack whore with a peg-leg,” his opening salvo misses the point when he adds in the footnote that “it appears that telling people how evil and stupid they are may not be the best way of convincing them….” (p. 61) The reason that atheists are distrusted and, in some cases, despised is not because of intellectual elitism and snobbery—it’s because atheism has been caricatured and stigmatized as a pseudo-Satanic cult in most popular media. It is still not socially acceptable to be as open with one’s non-belief as those who believe are. Walking or driving around with merchandise that announces one’s lack of superstitious belief still draws glares or snide remarks mixed in with the head shaking and sympathetic looks. Meanwhile, almost nobody looks askance at people wearing jewelry depicting crosses and dead crucified men, and Jesus fish are practically ubiquitous. Nonetheless, atheists are unpopular—just not for that reason.
Vox relies on many non-scientific studies done by news organizations to prove his points in this chapter, which is fine as they can be a legitimate gauge of popular culture, but one must be careful to remember that these surveys are subject to many confounding factors that limit their usefulness—the most obvious being selection bias and lack of randomization. When a person chooses to call in to a place and voluntarily take a survey about an issue, they tend to have very strong feelings about the issue. People who don’t find religion to be an issue are not likely to waste their time. With that out of the way, he claims that people use the religion of a politician to have confirmation of their personal morality. Given the fact that within Christendom, people’s morality can vary widely even on issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and war, it wouldn’t seem to be a very accurate or reliable tool. With our current president displaying extreme bellicosity and having the honor of putting more people to death than any other during his gubernatorial term in Texas, his conversations with Jesus don’t appear to have had any effect. Life is precious and sacred—until it comes out of a vagina. After that, fuck turning the other cheek. Is anybody else confused? What happened to praying for those who persecute you and giving the thief your shirt after he steals your jacket? It seems that people are talking to lots of different Jesuses. Or the Jesus they are talking to suffers from dissociative identity disorder.
Day admits that these moral boundaries are theoretical, and thus nullifies his own argument. We have already figured out that religiosity is no guide to an individual’s behavior, whether they are engaged in politics or not. The Jimmy Bakkers and Ted Haggards of the world only confirm the hypocrisy that is evident in the actions of most every believer. Given these facts, perhaps we need a better moral determinant. Maybe we could try some less nebulous ways of getting this information—such as asking them? I know, it’s a radical change from assuming that they hold to a set of beliefs handed down to fictional characters millennia ago, but it just might offer more insight into the personal morality of our leaders.
Day then uses the absence of defining characteristics of atheism, aside from lack of god-belief, to bolster his argument that there is no way for a person to know what particular pursuits will be undertaken by the politician with no religion. While I agree that this is the case, it seems ironic that he (admittedly) reverses his opinion in this circumstance. Isn’t this chapter called “The Religion of Reason?” If it is in fact a religion, then there would surely be some tenets and guidelines. Moreover, he proceeds to go on and claim that, by and large, atheists “parasitically” adopt the morality of their “hosts”, AKA the religious people around us. Could it not be the case that the similarities in ethical belief systems lie in the evolutionary origins of morality? Humans have been selected for traits such as reciprocal altruism and empathy, and while the details may vary over time and cultures, the tendencies that lead one to believe that some standards must be adhered to have been hard-wired into the brains of those most successful at reproduction. The specific indulgences, such as premarital sex, prohibited by religion are just as easily discarded by the religious as the non-religious. It is not random, as he asserts, but rather based in our nature as social creatures dependant on one another and the maintenance of stable societies. Religion may have played a role in the establishment and development of these groups, but we have moved past the point where punishment from sky-daddys is necessary. That’s what the justice system is for, and if that isn’t enough of a deterrent, neither is god. As he again conflates atheism with communist fascism as proof of the willingness of atheists to kill, need I remind anybody of the violence inspired by religion throughout history? Oh wait, that only applies to atheists. When it’s religious people doing the killing, they’re merely power-hungry humans lying about their religious belief to attain the trust of the populace. It has nothing to do with religion. And leaders who claim a religious affiliation are still more trustworthy, despite all of that. Special pleading, anybody?
To be continued…seemingly ad infinitum. Seriously, there’s so much material here that just begs for a response, I’m practically swimming in notes. Well, as they say in Japan, with the closest English equivalent lacking all of the sentiment, がんばります.*
*ga-n-ba-ri-ma-su - I will persevere.
- kellym78's blog
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Is there a commenting
Is there a commenting problem here? It's just odd that no comments have been posted since yesterday...
Atheist Books
A well-reasoned and
A well-reasoned and articulate response, Kelly.
I understand very well how draining and time-consuming it is to deal with individuals like Vox Day. They seem to get a perverse validation from baiting others with their outrageous nonsense. And while I think debate and argument are important, they can become a kind of obsession that detracts from the finer things in life. This has been my experience, at least.
I wouldn't think any less of you if you simply kicked V.D. to the proverbial curb and moved on to more fulfilling and and rewarding pursuits.
Dave
Attempted comment
Kelly,
If you can see this, the commenting system is working. I read your post, but hadn't replied.
I don't know much about this
I don't know much about this guy but the wiki entry made me think that this is a freak mutation of the christianity meme:
Christian theology and atheism
Beale's views on Christianity are unusual and potentially heretical. He is an Open Theist who has publicly expressed skepticism about God's omniscience and the existence of the Holy Trinity. He coined the term "omniderigence", which describes the doctrine of Calvinists and others who believe that God is responsible for acts of evil as divine puppet mastery. In The Irrational Atheist he postulates a Game Designer God that is loosely based on the simulation hypothesis of Nick Bostrom as a potential answer to the theological problem of evil and also claims to refute the Euthyphro Dilemma. He describes atheists as being "irrational" and "clowns of reason"[18] and blames their lack of belief in the existence of God on a "social autism" which he conjectures is the result of a mild form of Asperger's Syndrome.
And the one cartoon panel that depicts the Essential Absurdity of Christianity:
This makes me think of Christian theology as a big Cosmic Joke.
Morality and ethics propagated by religion is all memetic based. I'm more interested in what people do believe rather than what they do not. The memetic model of the Church of Reality is framed from the Christianity Meme Complex. We have tenets (Fundamental Concepts) and guidelines (Sacred Principles). A lot of symbolism in religions overlap and we mutate this to apply freethinking to the negative aspects of religion.
The crux argument can be summarized like this:
What is a Religion?
One definition of a religion is: "System of beliefs and practices concerned with sacred things and or symbols uniting individuals into a single moral community."
Religion is a statement of one's identity and one's belief system and how one evaluates truth. It is about one's morals and ethics and one's community. How one evaluates right and wrong; to identify with a religion is to associate oneself with a common world view shared with others of the same religion. In society, it identifies you in the larger culture of people who care about those sorts of things.
The Church of Reality gives Realists a religious identity.
Religious identity is important in society. Many wars are fought over religious issues - "my God is stronger than your God." People want to know what religion you identify with so they can evaluate your moral code. It gives people an idea of what deities you do or don't believe in. What rituals you practice. To be associated with a religion is to make a statement about who you are, what your values are, what you are committed to, and what you care about.
You don't need to believe in a deity or the supernatural to be a religion. All that is required is to share a common world view and doctrine.
I am a Realist. I believe in Reality the way it really is. I practice Realism. I try to live my life in a way that is as realistic as possible. I make my life choices based on what is really real. I seek to know the truth about the way things really are. I commit to the purpose of furthering knowledge and uncovering the truth. This is who I am and in becoming a member of the Church of Reality I am making a statement to the greater community that I agree with and identify with this world view. That by having the Church of Reality as my religion that is (or will be) commonly known, I can state that I am a Realist and have others understand what that is. That's why it is important to establish reality as a religion and give identity to those who share our common world view the same way that other religions give their world view a public identity.
As for the title "Clown of Reason" I take that as a compliment 'cause it's part of my principle I live by:
The Principle of Humor and Fun
Life should be fun and funny. This church is a religion that appreciates having a good time. We work hard and we play hard. We want to make sure that we don't get too serious. Life is to be lived and enjoyed and it is our world view that we should go out and have a good time, live it up, and make life fun and funny. Quality of life is important to us.
Somewhere there has to a proper place for Fantasy, but as a Realist I haven't figured that out yet.
Moving and shakin' like the Atheist's Worst Nightmare.
-RR
Choose Reality - http://www.churchofreality.org
Desiree Alliance - http://www.desireealliance.org
$pread magazine - http://www.spreadmagazine.org
kellym78 wrote:The reason
That's not the reason Kelly.
Distrust must imply that there was a reason not to trust to begin with. So do I have reason to distrust you or any other person who would identify themselves as an "atheist?" Does anyone? Despite the fact that those who identify themselves as part of the RRS express, at times, hostility and confrontational attitudes towards anyone who might be of a different label, namely theists, distrust
does not gain justification.
To say that an atheist is despised, again, must mean some reason for hatred to be directed your way. Not believing in God is hardly a reason for anyone to hate you or anyone else, despite the prementioned hostility. I cannot speak for all people of course but I'd venture to say you are not despised at the level you may think (although I am not ignorant to the fact that there are violent "theists" who would do you harm because of how you've labeled yourself, even though they are a walking contradiction).
If there was one reason to say that any person would look upon a self labeled atheist with discomfort, I would have to say that it deals more with the perception of selfishness than selflessness, much like the teachings of Anton LaVey which I'm curious if that's what you meant by liking atheists to Satanists. Again, I say this is a perception since the only time the label of "atheist" comes up is during a discussion of religion anyway. If I met any one of you on the street asking for the time, I would not look at you and wonder, "atheist?"
It is the specific advocating of labels, i.e. shoving your "lifestyle" in the face of everyone else, that provokes that perception. Perhaps that's your intention. Perhaps you want to be against the grain. Either way, it isn't that you don't have a right to do as you wish (you are given that by the Constitution), it is you don't show respect to anyone else who has that very same right as you by insulting them. One principle aspect of the LaVey teaching was the eye-for-an-eye philosophy, led from a sense of individualism (selfish) over needs of others.
So is your need to be known as an atheist trump the rights of others who choose to believe differently as you? Do you feel that you have to be in the face of others because of jewelry or those fish stickems?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I wouldn't say there's a commenting problem...
...it's just that when there are no updates for over a month, it takes time for people to come back.
razorphreak wrote:kellym78
I have an experiment for you. Pretend to be an atheist for 3 months. When people bring up their religious beliefs and try to cram them down your throat, let them know you don't agree with them and are an atheist. See how you get treated and then you can come back here and claim it's all in our heads and we are just a bunch of jerk offs.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
stillmatic wrote:I have an
I'm far from a fool. I know the probable outcome of the "experiment." I have evangelicals in my own family that I do not agree with, at times don't even want to associate with. The mistake with your appeal to belief however, as with many on this site, is the accepted idea that you can and SHOULD judge all "theists" the same because of that label.
You don't know me, you don't know my family, so you have no idea what they may or may not do if I "pretended" to be an atheist for a bit. Frankly, I do happen to know them a bit better and I know they would not cram anything down my throat, especially my mother.
I know you may find it hard to believe, but there are theists out there who have no such desire to attempt to convert the world. Many of us understand that an eye-for-an-eye is not what the New Testament teaches and understand that you have just as much right to live your life as you wish.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Stillmatic Do the
Stillmatic
Do the experiment or shut-up.
razorphreak wrote:stillmatic
You contradict yourself within two paragraphs. You can't with one hand claim that there are evangelicals out there that you know that dispise atheists and with the other state that we shouldn't fight against that hate because not all theists are the same.
We know that not all theists are the same. We know that not all atheists are the same as well. That doesn't mean hatred and discrimination towards atheists by theists doesn't exist.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." -- former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
In my experience it's
In my experience it's usually the atheist that's an obnoxious douche in conversations about religion.
stillmatic wrote:You
I guess you didn't really read my first post to Kelly (please re-read it). I am fully aware there are theists out there who will be jerks. And you missed my point; it is wrong to judge an individual based on the actions of others from the same "label." There is no contradiction in this. Should I hate those of African decent because one guy called me "cracka?" Should I hate all cacausians because they took one look at my skin and used some other kind of slur? What about people who drive a Prius and give me dirty looks because I have a truck? Should I hate all atheists because one or two have hostile attitudes against Christians?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Atheist barbs
This is most likely a result of incessant bullying by overbearing theists (albeit bullying behind a smile). The constant "Come on, come to church" and "You better believe or you're going to hell" comments tend to make many atheists bitter to the point that they'd rather attack first than sit through yet another lecture on the virtues of faith.
My Reality?
If you think there are:
• More than one reality
• That each is equally viable
• That you can simply CHOOSE to accept one over another
than no doubt your participation in a religious discussion brings out the "obnoxious douche" in any atheist present due to the intense frustration of having to deal with such willful ignorance.
It's this nonsensical extreme of pluralism which threatens science education and public policy decisions.
Blog
Reason
Signature ? How ?
I think that Vox Day is
I think that Vox Day is using "religion" as a dirty word here -- I have to marvel at the sight of Xian fundies and the like using "religion" as a dirty word. It's almost like they are condemning what they so vehemently defend.
Cpt_pineapple wrote:In my
In my experience, it's usually the theist who starts turning into an obnoxious douche, right about the time you start pointing out the problems in their beliefs.
Here, let me fix that:
I reject reality and substitute my own.
There, that captures religion perfectly....
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Scientist can't calculate the age of the earth
I'm not capable of writing anything original or even remotely related to the topic so I just copied a bunch of drivel from my blog.
troll copy and paste man
Does anyone else find
Does anyone else find rafael's blatherings to induce a case of tl;dr?
I tried, and I got confused by their atrocious formatting and poor overall organization. As far as I could tell from his most recent one, he thumps the Bible and claims it to be God's infallible instruction book, as opposed to the efforts of poor fallible humanity.
And doesn't anyone else notice how misanthropic fundies often are? Claiming that it is "man" (as if humanity was some great unified Borg-like entity) that is responsible for all our problems.
Yes
He sounds like another copy/paster. If he could read Hebrew and understand early Semitic mythology he would probably shut his mouth. But asking a Christians to comprehend anything historic is like asking a dolphin to speak Chinese.
Co-Founder of the Atheist/Freethought website Pathofreason.com
www.pathofreason.com
Check it out
lpetrich wrote
Signature ? How ?
TIA review
You go girl! Already you have made it part way thru chapter 4. It may sound like sarcasm, but it is not. You have already gone where many atheists have not gone before.
Stick it out. I think you can do it. Don't listen to the naysayers. They don't have your spunk.
Path of reason
Signature ? How ?
Watch this talk, and
Watch this talk, and read his book "CREATOR AND THE COSMOS," by Hugh Ross. This material should cure you of atheism and evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K9QhtlF3SU&feature=related
There is no way out of his arguments. What we know today about science points to God. What we now know, makes atheism highly improbable. Please, watch that talk and read his book. This is a must for all atheists.
razorphreak wrote:Quote:you
razorphreak wrote:
More of the "Be tolerant of my intolerance" argument which is as reprehensible as it is flawed.
First, when you subscribe to a dogmatic worldview that doesn't allow itself to be questioned, "individuality" is always sacrificed & replaced w/ conformity.
And yes, it's true that the "actions" of many xtians often shock the conscience. However, I don't see anyone here arguing that all xtians behave exactly the same, but then this is not really the point.
Your attempt to draw a parallel to groups that have been typically oppressed is obviously flawed. Of course, you don't want to be painted w/ the same brush as all other xtians, but how can a xtian possibly exist without their tenets (the bible) ?
The bible is intolerant, divisive, prejudicial, hateful and cruel. I don't care to what degree you believe in it or what literal interpretation you do or don't credit it with. If you want to promote such hate, it's not unexpected or unfair that you might have to wear the label of hate, prejudice & ignorance that such a worldview promotes.
Show me the hateful or divisive worldview that atheism promotes ?
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
AmericanIdle wrote:Show
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
A must for all atheists, you say?
Jerud1711 wrote:
How much faith do you have in this material, Jerud1711? Would you be willing to purchase the book for me, and compensate me for the hours and hours it will take me to suffer through it and the "talk?" I think $10 per hour would be a fair rate, but it's negotiable.
After all, if there is really no way out of his arguments, as you say, it's a slam dunk; and money shouldn't really be an issue if it saves my soul from eternal damnation, should it?
This is a serious offer, and I eagerly await your response.
Dave
Evolution cannot
Evolution cannot stand-up against the biology of the information age. [Dr. Meier, philosopher of science from Cambridge].
Watch this 59 minute Lee Strobel presentation where he consults leading scientific experts on recent discoveries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYiCMWd3cQo
Kelly, you've got
Kelly, you've got competition: Deacon Duncan of http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/
He's also been reviewing Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist, and he's gotten a lot farther, though his reviews have been much shorter, and he may have gotten a head start. Search for "TIA Tuesday" to see what he's reviewed so far.
Again, my offer stands
Jerud1711, my offer stands. If you wish me to view this presentation, it will require a faith offering on your part. This will amount to $10.00.
When you are ready, I will e-mail you a Paypal invoice, and when your payment clears, I will sit through this earth-shaking video.
Dave
Jerud1711
Lee Strobel? ROFLMMFAO! Maybe someday--likely following a full frontal lobotomy.
Atheist Books
metaethics
OK. I'm gonna raise an issue which I think isn't really being dealt with or raised. Why are you (any of the people in this forum for that matter) assuming the validity of a meta-ethical stance? I mean, look at the parlance of the forum itself. Who says it's unfair to be treated in the manner that atheists are allegedly treated?
Here are some of the ME (meta-ethical) candidates:
Informative:
Performative:
I'm going to have to assume that this forum is assuming the validity of imperativism, because we're saying that we are not to treat people with militant malum. There's no justification other than one is not to do it. There isn't really a reason; it's just a command.
silly human
Y'all are busy trying to figure out this logic mess? there is nothing to figure out.
He used the word "religion" in place of the correct word "philosophy" which is only the first mistake that is made.
That being said the rest is nonsense because in order for something to be a religion there has to be a power structure. Thus the entire thing is tainted with tragically flawed logic.
bodhi
Hrmm...not exactly
Response: I don't know if you're aware but even philosophers (non-theistic philosophers) have come to conclude that no matter what religion or philosophy one assents to meta-ethically, they all have a philosophy of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. I suggest you read Collin Brown on the history of philosophy or at least a philosophical journal. All religions have a philosophy, and all philosophies have a religion (that is, a structural method of the three philosophical disciplines mentioned above).
Response: Could you clarify what you mean here by "power structure." It seems like there are a lot of equivocal terms you're using.
Those videos mentioned in
Those videos mentioned in this thread regarding 'math probabilities' and 'fine tuning' pointing to a "creator designer thingy" are laughable. All the talk of "astronomical" numbers is small thinking .....
Dr. Hugh Ross and Lee Strobel are small minded dogmatic science comedian parrots .... unless 1 followed by eons of zeros makes your day .... The "probable chance" of us being here is meaningless drivel. There is zero probability for what is, in an eternal infinite "Oneness" of no beginning , no ending. Zero is a most meaningful concept. Numbers we do find useful, but lose meaning in the unmeasurable Oneness. Do people think that if they continue traveling out there, past our "bang", they will eventually find some kind of an end ? .... The "oneness" screams to me, " NO DESIGNER CREATOR ! "
To assume the tiny transition we foolishly call the "Big Bang", is in anyway unique, makes me laugh .... then cry, then angry, when I hear these "creation science" wacks spreading their "small talk".
How many "bang transitions" are currently NOW in process way "out there" ?!?!
Damn right I am annoyed by obvious religious dogma. Dogma is all our enemy that we need help one another fight. Help me when I error, I am only god, the "force", dancing as I AM what I AM ! .... g-a-w-e-d .... "No Master".
Thanks again wise caring Kelly.
Be extra super nice to yourself.
Atheism Books.
1. You can't "cure"
1. You can't "cure" someone of what they choose to believe like it's an illness, you can only hope to change their mind. I am somewhat offended of your implication that we are sick because we don't believe in a god.
2. There must be some reason that the commenting feature is turned off on the youtube video...maybe atheists weren't quite as convinced as you think they should be and decided to comment on it. I sure wasn't.
3. Dark energy is a currently expanding field of research. It's not known as complete fact yet, people are still trying to figure out exactly what it is and how it works. No one knows how the universe was formed for certain so to take one paper as the be all and end all on the matter is foolish. Also, using as many exponents as possible in a speech does not constitute scientific fact. The arguments in the video are based on twisting of science and rhetoric in order to "prove" his point. He takes a little pinch of scientific information and runs with it to make his own points and appear to have science backing him.
He states that the three scientists in the paper he waves said, "An external agent (external to space and time) intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own." This is an example of his selective information. The actual quote from the published paper is:
"Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasons of
its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation.However,
even this does not rid the theory of the pesky recurrences."
He also edits the first quote he used in his youtube video but I won't bore you with that.
They state as their conclusion (instead of, omg guys! there iz a god lolz) :
"Perhaps the only reasonable conclusion is that we do not live in a world with a true
cosmological constant."
If you back up and read the first full paragraph on page 15 of their paper you see they actually talk about how life can exist on other planets and how evolution can be seen by basically rewinding.
Here's the link for anyone who wants to read the science behind the rhetoric: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1126-6708/2002/10/011/jhep102002011.pdf?request-id=faff8216-faa3-4014-a36b-693eab4c0e0e
re: Metaethics
In short: because many atheists choose to do so. It is the logical conclusion to draw from the fact that atheists are being attacked falsely and maliciously, for no other reason than because the xtians' holy book says so.
It is unfair because it is based on falsehoods and slander. The treatment atheist are subjected to has no factual base. For instance, atheists don't worship the devil... because we don't believe in him either.
On a more broad level it is unfair because it increases suffering and misery. And what is more unfair is that it has no other purpose.
Furthermore it is unfair because the attackers themselves have faith (belief without evidence) in precepts that can be shown logically to be false. Nothing good will come from such faith.
So, you see, there are reasons.
Sincerely,
i.p.
ps. for a more thorough writing on the subject, visit here.
three blind men describe ån elephant
" all philosophers conclude " really...
here's a philosopher and philosophy for ya
"Everyone has to believe in something, I believe I'll go fishing "
Henry David Thoreau
no ethics there
as far as "metaphysics" prove that the topic exists...
also you use the "theory of knowledge" as a precedent... I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense speak.
"all philosophies have a religion (that is, a structural method of the three philosophical disciplines mentioned above)."
this is circuitous logic.
OK OK "all philosophies have a religion"... "all" wow you must know a really lot, are you god...
OK. I'm done laughing. just because all religions have some kind of philosophical background does not mean this equation is reciprocal.
power structure... (this is getting tiresome) lets say person "1" has the personal philosophy "that we are all plants". they go through life believing this. then they die. OK, there is nobody or nothing to "pray" to and no structure of persons who can converse with anything since there is nothing to communicate with. thus no "power structure"
"it seems like there are a lot of equivocal terms"... are you sure.?
bodhi
The Fallacy of the Golden Mean
I think Vox Day is committing the Fallacy of the Golden Mean, although he hasn't outright stated it: He sees that atheists and theists are often equally matched when it comes to the passion they invest in their positions. He figures that if Fundamentalist Christianity is bad (and it is, make no mistake) that Atheism must be just as nasty, since atheists like Richard Dawkins and RRS's Kelly are very assertive and don't beat around the bush. The problem with his position is that he fails to realize that one of these position could very well be right, in spite his disagreements about the representative's choice of words.
I have a blog, "Answers in Genesis BUSTED!" Please visit it and leave a comment:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
Sincerely,
Ryan
Vox Day OUCH
Anyhoot, for a cold spooky chill, Google Vox Day, or Theodore Beale (same person). From what little I've read, he is pretty scary and confusing .... but some agreeable things I can say of him are he is : anti-war, pro prostitution, for decriminalizing drugs, his interest in music, and some of his criticizim of conservatives. Then he goes racist and anti feminist ??? WTF , Shezzzz .....
He professes a distain for dogma yet directs alot of distain at science, while calling himself a "Christion"... But obviously 'God of Abraham' and 'Christianty' are dogmatic inventions of earthlings. Umm, go figure? Reading him oddly reminds me of wild dogist bible Paul/Saul ! ??? My Christ >ME< , ain't that Pauls Jesus invention ...
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-must-be-slipping-in-my-old-age.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale
______________________________________________________________
I just came in from the woods, what is this city talk of not being god ?!!! Oh atheism .... Okay , I am atheist , just as god is, just as me god ! ..... Hey, like Rum ? Where are them atheist girls !?!
Getting smart was never my plan, I did it for fun. Okay indeed, I need lots more FUN!
Atheism Books.
AmericanIdle wrote:First,
Whether or not you follow a belief does not remove any sense of individuality. Forcing children to wear school uniforms is an example of removing individuality. You however do not have to step foot into a church if you so choose not to. I do not have to go every Sunday because of my faith - I choose to for reasons that do not help me "re-believe" each week, i.e. fellowship. But then, you don't know who I am so how can you say I "conform" to anything?
Actually, it is very much the point...
How could Newton have come up with Calculus without a Calculus book? You're over simplifying.
If someone desires the complete erradication of a way of life, is that not oppressing them?
I'm not going to debate you point by point on this since you probably don't care what I say anyway. And again, since you know nothing about me, how can you say I "promote such hate" when there is neither hate nor promotion of hate in believing in God?
I know what you might be thinking...xyz group did 123. Right? It might be a "no true scots" fallacy that I'm eluding to, but that isn't the focus of this thread so I'll it at that.
When someone says they want to "erradicate" your thoughts, your beliefs, or your lifestyle, is that not hateful or divisive?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I was an atheist for years
I was an atheist for years and I never once had anyone attempt to "cram their believes down my throat." If it ever came up (which it rarely did) I would simply state that I was an atheist and sometimes there would be a reasonable discussion and sometimes the subject would be dropped.
Of course I must admit that in some circumstances I would keep silent concerning my atheism, when visiting my mother-in-law for instance. Perhaps you would consider that an intolerable situation, but I think of it as having the good sense to not fart at the dinner table.
My experience leads me to believe that most people can't stand militant atheists because they won't shut the hell up about their pet peeve.
I'm sorry but I have to
I'm sorry but I have to say that Kelly is gorgious. Brian is lucky. Beauty and intelligence. Kelly is a gem. I've stalked, I mean watched, her on Youtube. I have a crush.
ralphhyatt wrote:Of course I
I wouldn't say that's an 'intolerable' situation, and I agree that when in someone's house, that does occupy a place of simple courtesy and respect. However, at the same time, it still demonstrates the point that atheists often can't be as open with their beliefs as a theist.
If your mother-in-law visited you, would she keep silent concerning her theism?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Stating decimals does not increase credibility
The speaker in the link you provided manages to shoot himself in the foot only minutes into the speech. He claims that because a physical process is tightly balanced, it must a) be caused by external means, b) the external cause must be a sentient knowledgeable "personal being" and c) this personal being must be his god.
All these claims are of course irrational. for example, the heat radiated from an object must equal or exceed the incoming energy or the temperature of the object will rise until this is the case. The match between incoming and radiated energy are equal to a hell of a lot of decimals, but it does NOT from this follow that a knowledgeable, intelligent, aware, "personal being" must be present to supernaturally regulate the radiation.
Once this failure in his conjecture is apparent the rest of his tenets are totally groundless since they are based on this initial falllacy.
I do not know what he is a doctor in, but it doesn't require math or physics and so he should not display it as a credential that lends weight to his statements.