The preceding essay demonstrates the genesis of revered ignorance! Instead of revering science to inform their views, such proud ignoramuses prefer an undocumented source of undocumented misanthropes. It troubles such pathetic people that science does go against their supposed truthful scriptures.
The writer faults his fellow ignoramuses for not adhering to is form. We full skeptics find that old age creationists only follow science up to a point: they gladly accept the ancient age but still refuse to let science tell them the truth of the genesis of humans.
Theistic evolutionists accept gladly evolution, but not the fact that science finds no divine intent, and thus, theistic evolution contradicts rather than complements science, being no more than an oxy-moronic obfuscation!
We full skeptics find that science does find no God, including Martin Gardner's one. Faith can not instantiate the deist God!
Haughty John Haught proclaims that why, blind faith can lead to danger, but true faith envelopes the whole being, and Alister Earl McGrath proclaims that first believers find the evidence for belief and then use faith for certitude. Both approaches cannot obviate the fact that no matter how defined, faith opposes rational methodology!
Science acceptance does not lead to scientism- that only science finds truth, but one must use rational means to verify any matter.
By the way, the distinction betwixt methodological and ontological naturalism cannot gainsay the fact that methodological naturalism itself is mechanistic! Thus, the NCES and others making that distinction err in thinking that that distinction actually can assuage creationists!
Creationism methodology precludes people from accepting mechanism no matter how accommodationists define matters!
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Morality- real claim
William Lane Craig takes as gospel truth all the matter in the Bible. He defends the commands for genocide. He defends the divine command theory.
He has no evidence for his claims for the anthology, none for his God and none for morality.
Why should any rational person find creditable the talking snake and the talking donkey and all those miracles?
He cannot defend the putative genocide as morality condemns such. He cannot with that other fool C.S.Lewis claim why, to find God immoral then one has to have an objective morality, one independent of people's subjectivity. No. In part, morality depends on that subjectivity- the overruling of our tastes and whims with our considered judgment, which depends on our evolved moral sense- empathy- and reason and facts-- wide-reflective subjectivism underpinning the humanist,objective ethic. As with science, it is tentative- we can refine it- and debatable, His is the egregious simple subjectivism of malignant, malicious misanthropes, who largely made up morality due to their egregious tastes and whims; the simple subjectivism of those who have a good moral sense can be just fine.
WLC prefers that egregious morality to that of Lord Russell or Michael Ruse or the wide-reflective one of Hobbes and Hume.^
What rational person would accept those biblical tall tales? No evidence exists for them, just men spouting off! Why, history finds much of that egregious anthology wrong! Yet, he wants others to base their lives on that anthology from Hell!
He spouts logical fallacies for his Kalam argument! He thinks that his rhetoric can instantiate God!
http://forgedbible.blogspot.com
http://biblemyths.wordpress.com
He has no evidence for his claims for the anthology, none for his God and none for morality.
Why should any rational person find creditable the talking snake and the talking donkey and all those miracles?
He cannot defend the putative genocide as morality condemns such. He cannot with that other fool C.S.Lewis claim why, to find God immoral then one has to have an objective morality, one independent of people's subjectivity. No. In part, morality depends on that subjectivity- the overruling of our tastes and whims with our considered judgment, which depends on our evolved moral sense- empathy- and reason and facts-- wide-reflective subjectivism underpinning the humanist,objective ethic. As with science, it is tentative- we can refine it- and debatable, His is the egregious simple subjectivism of malignant, malicious misanthropes, who largely made up morality due to their egregious tastes and whims; the simple subjectivism of those who have a good moral sense can be just fine.
WLC prefers that egregious morality to that of Lord Russell or Michael Ruse or the wide-reflective one of Hobbes and Hume.^
He'd let the holy spirit- his own inner thought- to override his reason should he find no evidence for the Resurrection and all. He prefers being a dupe to ancient immoral- thinking men than to test claims. That inner thought is his own fear of reality at work by using , his own certitude but claiming that that spirit speaks to him. Telepathic God would violate physics!
Dogmatism cannot instantiate God. We have no sensus divinitatus- divine sense- the holy spirit at work, despite that other fool Alvin Plantinga!What rational person would accept those biblical tall tales? No evidence exists for them, just men spouting off! Why, history finds much of that egregious anthology wrong! Yet, he wants others to base their lives on that anthology from Hell!
He spouts logical fallacies for his Kalam argument! He thinks that his rhetoric can instantiate God!
http://forgedbible.blogspot.com
http://biblemyths.wordpress.com
Sunday, February 17, 2013
That burden!
Wilson and Alvin Plantinga go for that self-evident God, thereby proving they lack wisdom in that respect!
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Conspiracy
Ti's lazy thinking to entertain conspiracy theories instead of getting the real facts about groups and event.
Groups advocating greater globalism aren't committed to communism. Their aims are for success of all nations.
What conspiracies might you suggest aren't real? What do you find nonsensical about the Wreck's [ Glenn Beck] conspiratorial views?
The Southern Poverty group fights real conspiracies.
We skeptics encourage skepticism about conspiracies that left or right find.
What other objections to conspiratorial view would you advance?
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
Idiot theist
We full skeptics can declaim that due to lack of referents, as each of the naturalist, especially the empirical or the teleonomic alone, arguments hold and His attributes are incoherent and contradictory, God cannot possibly exist!
We can take the burden of proof in that we can affirm [Google:] ontological naturalism- the presumption of naturalism.
What is your take?
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Ontological naturalism
We naturalists demand evidence for the supernatural. We find that natural causes and explanations suffice as I previously discussed here.
Theists cannot claim that people have a sensus diivinatus- a sense of the divine as a basic matter.For something to be basic it must be natural .
Ontological naturalism, philosophy, perforce rests on methodoglical naturalism. Supernaturalists use the latter when doing real science.
We naturalists find that they rely instead on intuion not evidenced-based, revelations and faith and inisinterpretations of evidence.
Nature, not supernature, provides for what can lead to that more abundant life!
The supernatural and the paranormal, twin superstitions are what the late,grat Paul Kurz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
Ontological naturalism proffers reality instead of fantasy. Science is acquired knowledge, whilst as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Faith contradicts our conservation -background- of knowledge.
Previous essays here further this one.
What do you maintain?
Skepticism
We skeptics apply methodological naturalism to matters; we full skeptics find that it presents no evidence for the supernatural and thus, God doesn't exist, making the empirical argument.
Supernaturalists can prattle all they want, but never have they produced evidence for other venues of knowledge. Haughty John Haught ,therefore, begs the question thereof. Intuition, revelation, traditions hardly quality as valid methods; intuition has to come from knowledge to be right or else, it will be disconfirmed, revelations are only people's own imaginations at work and traditions can err .
How then could Haught be against any paranormal matter as the paranormal rests on the same false methods?
We can do better without the superstitions of the supernatural and the paranormal! We full skeptics find that morality stems from our evolved moral sense that we do refine, and we base it ontologically in our nature. Theistic moralities are just simple, mainly egregious rants of mere men. Some even approach our humanistic one when theists use reason and facts instead of whims and preferences.
Supernaturalists must deliver evidence, not definition,intuition faith, postulation andpresuppositional theology.We have no sensus divinatus, despite the evil John Calvin and Alvin Plantinga, sophist- no sense of the divine.
Misinterpretation of evidence that the supernaturalists deliver ranks as nothing; they must deliver real evidence. They misinterpret mechanism and patterns with the pareidolias^ of teleology and design. They misinterpret the parameters as evidence for fine-tuning and they misinterpret the Big Bang as creation instead of transformation of eternal energy.
They misinterpret incompleteness of science with their Henry Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps and add the supernatural as the overarching, ultimate explanation with the Lamberth the God of the explanatory gap.
Keith Parsons, fellow atheologian, finds :"Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation." Yes, the occult contradicts real explanations.
We have no need of that superfluity!^
What do you think?
^ Lamberth's the argument from pareidolia
^the Aquinas-Shelley superfluity argument
Monday, January 21, 2013
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Apocalyptc woo!
What rational person would ever accept apocalyptic events, as they always fail to occur? Why would she accept the ranting of an apocalyptic in person or from a writing who provides no evidence but a revelation, the product of his own mind? As with all other religious experience, apocalypticism has no foundation, just a rant.
Then many people just haven't known about the failures or just think that for once one will occur. James' will to believe presents itself thereby. People can will themselves to believe.
"Faith doth that to people."
We skeptics urge others to please not demean themselves into making rash decisions in following any apocalyptic.
Yeshua said that no one knew when he'd return, yet predicted he would in his hearers lifetimes. That is a contradiction and a failed prophecy. Apologists rationalize about both.
We full skeptics urge others not to accept the uncorroborated works of uncorroborated writers of scriptures anyway.
We see that Yeshua had no corroboration as a trusted preacher when we see his apocalyptic ethic and his love of Hell! He was the narcissistic cult leader who came not to bring peace but a sword, to break up families and have his sheep love him more than others and that people would persecute them! Apologists rationalize all that.
Whether religious or - secular apocalyptics just make up their prophecies.
http://lordI.wordpress.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)