It was written so well by Thomas it is now our newest post.Let this stand as an Ode to our brother Thomas who is far from doubting. For those interested he started this conversation here.
Nothing more needs to be said. I believe I can close shop now.
I will just post his reply to Stan. Well done Thomas, I am certain that Van Til, Bahnsen, and TenBruggencate are smiling.
Stan- Logical absolutes exist, by definition.
Thomas- So according to you, the three laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle) are dependent upon man and were invented by man, correct? If this is the case, then they could not be absolute since different minds could conceive of different laws. How do you know who is correct?
If logical absolutes exist only by definition then they could not be absolute. Would they exist if humankind didn’t exist (would adding 2 object to 2 objects still equal 4 objects)? If so, then they are not dependent upon man.
Are these laws material or immaterial? Can the scientific method determine these logical absolutes without using those same logical absolutes to gain that knowledge? They couldn’t. Does absolute truth exist? You would have to say “yes” to this question. Saying “no” would be self-defeating.
Now, if laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, cannot be empirically tested, and absolute truth does exist, how is that possible in an atheistic system? You must have an atheistic answer; otherwise you should stop referring to yourself as an atheist.
Stan-As to your second question, (Is matter eternal or did it come from nothing?) I have no idea, and I don't think it is necessarily an either/or dichotomy as you imply.
Stan-That question, for my money, contains the answer to yours -- certainty is only obtainable for those things for which we can define certainty.
Stan-That is, the "Law of Non-contradiction" dictates that we can say, with certainty, that if a given thing is 'not-A,' then it is not 'A.'
If logic didn’t evolve or develop over time, then it must have always been there. But, given atheism, how is that possible in a materialistic, atheistic universe?
Stan-It does not, however, follow from this law that we can say with certainty that there is or is not a deity, much less what doctrines or attributes that deity espouses or exhibits.
Well Stan, we’re not done yet, so look alive. There’s a bit more to the argument. If logical absolutes exist, they exist in the mind and not in matter. They are not physical entities that can be looked at in a test tube.
One can’t test the laws of logic in a lab nor could one test them using the scientific method because one would have to assume them as true to begin with. Yet scientists use them all the time to verify their science without any justification. Therefore, logical absolutes exist without any scientific verification. You use them all the time. Yet I thought that atheists only believe those things that have scientific empirical proof? Guess not.
If logical absolutes exist, then they are absolutely true for all times and for all people and are therefore transcendent. Go a billion years into the future and they’re still true; go a billion years back in time and they’re still true. If you disagree with that, then you believe logic is subjective and relative which means that you couldn’t prove anything.
They exist independent of humankind and they must also be immaterial, transcendent, and cannot be scientifically verified with empirical proof. Atheism can’t account for this. Theism can. Logical absolutes are a reflection of an absolutely perfect mind. Since logic exists in the mind and is immaterial, it must be based in something absolutely perfect and immaterial. This is what I would call God.
Atheism cannot account for logical absolutes. Given atheism, absolutes would be impossible and we would be left with subjectivity and relativism which would mean we couldn’t actually prove anything (including this statement). That’s my point.
Now, how do I know it is the Christian God in particular? I would need to support this argument with others in order to build a solid case. For example, there are teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, moral arguments, ontological arguments, arguments from experience, archaeological arguments, arguments against other world religions, arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, etc. I don’t have hours and hours of time to unpack these but plenty of great people have done so.
Adding all of these together, I am convinced that the Christian God exists. Therefore, I actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing these things with people. You have no reason. Que sera sera….it doesn’t matter. It shouldn’t matter to you. But somehow this does matter to you so much so that you are willing to spend your time debating it.
tinyurl.com/Atheistsdebunked
I think first we should examine what we mean by "absolute truth." There are two main possible concepts; and I have seen christians switching between ideas when they think it will trip up an honest dissenter. One concept of "absolute truth" is an absolute standard by which one can determine whether a statement is true or not. This does not exist. It cannot exist. A statement like "this statement is not deemed true by [absolute truth]" defeats it. The standard must decide it incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteThe other concept of an "absolute truth" is a statement that is necessarily true in all possible worlds. Such truths do exist. The assertion that there can be no absolute standard by which to determine the truth of a claim is one such truth.
"Since logic exists in the mind and is immaterial, it must be based in something absolutely perfect and immaterial."
This, of course is self-defeating. If logic is based on anything, it is subjective. If there are "absolute laws of logic," as Thomas contends, they cannot have been established by any entity -- even your god -- as that would make them relative, not absolute.
But there is another point. Logic exists only in minds and is a way of reasoning. One can still not "go back to a time when there was no logic" because one is taking one's mind and logic with him.
Now, Dan, if you want to close up shop, you can. All who agreed with you, originally, will remain convinced; and those who did not agree with you will be non-plussed. It all depends on what you want. If you are looking for brownie points among your fellow christians, congratulations. If you are seeking truth or trying to convince those who do not already agree with you, you will have to change your tactics.
I have a sneaky suspicion that "Thomas" is actually..."Dan."
ReplyDeleteThe link to "Thomas" did ot work when I tried it.
Froggie- I don't know who Thomas is, since he is coy about putting up a profile, but I'm willing to bet he is not Dan: his style is different.
ReplyDeleteThomas- you refer continually to "immaterial" things: thoughts, minds, laws of logic. Can you please define "immaterial" and prove that "immaterial" things exist? As far as I can see, what you call "immaterial" is what I would call "patterns". Patterns exist because the Universe is orderly in certain ways: for instance, matter is not distributed randomly in space, but clumped together by gravity. The workings of the laws of physics cause matter to become further ordered under some conditions: thus we have galaxies, stars, planets, crystals, and eventually life.
Now, while there is a great deal about all this that remains mysterious, there is no evidence that such patterns, up to and including life, mind, logic, beauty, and religion, are anything but patterns of energy and matter. If you want to call such patterns "immaterial", that's okay: but that doesn't mean that there is some sort of "immaterial" substance or binding force in these patterns, any more than there is an "immaterial" component to a wave: it's just made of water and nothing else.
Of course, such ideas have been popular: for instance, élan vital was the supposed substance or immaterial force that made things alive. But there is no evidence that such a substance or force exists, and we now know a great deal (not everything, by any means) about what makes living things tick, and can say with some confidence that life is a certain kind of order or pattern of matter and energy, not a special substance or force.
The same goes for the epiphenomena of life: our perceptions, thoughts, and feelings are all patterns of matter and energy, as far as we can tell. This is becoming more apparent, the more we know about neurology: the mind is what the brain does, and what we perceive and feel is directly related to physical states of the brain.
Of course, why the Universe evinces the kinds of order that make such patterns appear is an open question- along with the question of why there is matter and energy at all. But these are questions that are not answered by religion either, because "goddidit" is not an answer, but simply inventing a superbeing and passing the buck to her- or if you prefer, weaving an imaginary carpet out of ectoplasm and sweeping the questions under it. All this does is add complexity without increasing our knowledge. Until it can be shown that the God hypothesis does any work, there's no reason to entertain it.
Thus, this appeal to immaterial things that need to be generated by an immaterial God is unsupported by the evidence. Moreover, it is a case of special pleading: if immaterial things exist and need to be explained, then an immaterial God also needs explaining. Of course I'm aware that there is a venerable tradition of claiming that God is exempt from such mundane necessities, in the form of "the Uncaused Cause", or "the Prime Mover", but this is all wordplay; and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, can be regarded as equivalent to my proof that if a equals b plus c, then a equals b:
a=b+c
(a-b)a=(a-b)(b+c)
a²-ab=ab-b²-bc+ac
a²-ab-ac=ab-b²-bc
a(a-b-c)=b(a-b-c)
a=b
There are no prizes for being the first to show what's wrong with this, so you smart guys (you know who you are) let everyone have a crack at it before you blurt out the answer.
I've been AWOL for a while, mainly because I don't have time to read the lengthy conversations. But I'm really hung up on this quote by Thomas:
ReplyDeletethen they could not be absolute since different minds could conceive of different laws. How do you know who is correct?
I really think he said it well. We can believe in man made laws. Religion is a man made law. Therefore, we can't believe in religion.
I know that's not directly related to this discussion of absolute truth. But once I read that quote, I couldn't get passed it.
Dan, by the lengths of the comments and the numerous lenghty debates you've had on here, I'm sure you know that you have not convinced anyone. Congrats on making a successful and active blog. But you have not, and probably never will debunk atheism.
Pardon my typo. I meant "we can't believe in man made laws."
ReplyDeleteOh FFS Sye Mk II - and yet no better than the original. Perhaps this schmuck has proof of "the impossibility of the contrary".
ReplyDeletea=b
ReplyDeleteVery nice. This is precisely what Dan, et al are doing when they claim the existence of deity. I really can't think of a more succinct, exact way of putting it. I tip my hat to you, sir.
I'll also have you know that I'm chomping at the bit to give it away, but per your request, and my morbid curiosity as to whether Dan will ever get it without assistance, I will refrain.
--
Stan
(P.S. - Dan; when you split a thread like this, you destroy its flow. I understand you want to highlight a post you especially liked, but perhaps rather than start a new thread, you could instead post a link to the comment in question?)
I'll also have you know that I'm chomping at the bit to give it away, but per your request, and my morbid curiosity as to whether Dan will ever get it without assistance, I will refrain.
ReplyDeleteStan, I don't think Dan will even try, because he will be afraid that if he sees the problem in my algebra, he will also see the problem in his theology. But I'm curious too.
Well, the laws of logic (identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle) are NOT dependent on human minds. They exist, but it takes a mind to be aware of their existence. This is a common misunderstanding. There are two meanings to the word "logic." I separate them as follows: When I use a capital -- "Logic" -- I refer to the codification of our perception of knowledge. If a thing exists, it exists as something and not something else. This is the nature of reality, and any being that develops enough intelligence to codify reality will codify it this way. With a lowercase letter, "logic" refers to our thought processes in reaching knowledge. We take empirical observations and move to necessary or implied conclusions. We cannot avoid thinking this way, any more than we can avoid recognizing that a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteZilch,
ReplyDeleteI know you poisoned the well when you added (a-b) to the already simplified a=b+c.
You cannot simplify a=b+c anymore then it already is.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteNo, that step is valid. It is legitimate to multiply both sides of an equality by the same expression. (It is impossible to "poison the well" in algebra.) Here's a hint. Substitute a =3, b = 2, and c = 1 into the formulae; find the spot where the equality no longer holds; and you will find the incorrect step.
Thanks Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteAlgebra hurts my brain.
a=b+c
1/a=1/b+1/c
1=a(1/b+1/c)
1=a/b+a/c
1=(ab+ac)/bc
ab + ac = bc
a(b+c)=bc
a=bc/(b+c)
Answer: a=bc/(b+c)
Checking equality of sides: substitute a with [bc/(b+c)]:
1/[bc/(b+c)]=1/b+1/c
(b + c)/bc= 1/b+1/c
bc(1/b+1/c)=b+c
c+b=b+c
I hate you Zilch!
I am embarrassed as to how long it took me but a homeschool teacher(mom) said to me in jury duty that I needed to be only one day smarter then my students.
Zilch, sinch!
ReplyDeletea=b+c
(a-b)a=(a-b)(b+c)
Fallacy is here.
You cannot proceed with anything unless you first establish (a-b) is NOT zero.
XY=XZ does not mean Y=Z, unless we know X is NOT ZERO.
As for you Dan, I don't know who taught you math, but
How can you go from
a=b+c
to
1/a=1/b+1/c
?
One only needs to see that
3=2+1
Does NOT make
1/3 = 1/2 + 1/1
or
6= 4 +2
Does NOT make
1/6 = 1/4 + 1/2
HELLO??? Are you kidding me?
In other words Dan:
ReplyDeleteYou cannot say apple is equal to orange just because
"No apples is worth the same as no oranges", because "nothing = nothing" is always true.
Unless you can say
"3 (or a non-zero number) apples is worth the same as 3 oranges" , you can't say apples and oranges are the same value.
Slim:
ReplyDeleteOopsie. Multiplying both sides of a true equation by zero is still valid because the equation will remain true. Indeed 0 = 0 is inherently true. Now dividing by zero...
Dan:
So, would you care to commit yourself to one definition of "absolute truth"?
Yes, it's VALID, but it's a fallacy to say "therefore, Y=Z", so proceed with caution.
ReplyDeletea(a-b-c)=b(a-b-c)
CANNOT mean a=b
UNLESS we agree (a-b-c) is not ZERO.
Slim,
ReplyDeleteOne only needs to see that
3=2+1
Does NOT make
1/3 = 1/2 + 1/1
I was getting it to = 1. Sooo it does make 3/1=2/1+1/1. Maybe that is where I was wrong?
It is absolutely true that I suck at math though. :)
Thanks
1= 1/2 + 1/2
ReplyDeletedoes not make
1 = 2+ 2 does it?
/me covers his face in shame regarding the mathematical inability thus far showcased.
ReplyDeleteDan: EPIC FAIL
Slim: FAIL, but your exposition of Dan's awful algebra is noted. D-, then?
Pvblivs: I'm pretty sure you get it.
I'm waiting either for someone to explicitly answer the "riddle" or for Zilch to give me permission to do so myself.
I am embarrassed as to how long it took me but a homeschool teacher(mom) [sic] said to me in jury duty that I needed to be only one day smarter then [sic] my students.
This is practical, but in your case, Dan, I think you might shoot for two days ahead... If nothing else, I pity your weekends, which are doubtless spent cramming for the coming Monday lessons. I cannot help but wonder if your children might benefit more from someone who, rather than being a day or two ahead of the curriculum, actually had a solid grasp of the subject matter at hand...
a=b+c
1/a=1/b+1/c
Too funny.
To Slim specifically:
Your objection is valid, but unnecessary. One can quite safely assume that a-b≠0 and still encounter the same dilemma. The actual problem lies elsewhere. I trust you can find it yet.
Oh, and before you assume that c=0, that's not it either (it would in fact be implied if a-b=0).
To Zilch:
Damn, man, for an easy math puzzle (which I declare I have not seen before in that form -- but I did know what to look for), you sure have started something... I again tip my hat to you.
--
Stan
Edit: Pvblivs -- I just read your last; now I'm certain you get it.
ReplyDeleteLove and hugs,
--
Stan
a=b+c
ReplyDeletea(a-b-c)=b(a-b-c)
all the other lines are redundant.
a=b+c
a-b=c
therefore.
a(a-b-c)=b(a-b-c)
can become
a(c-c)=b(c-c)
Is that it? Just because I pointed out one thing wrong does not mean I think it's the ONLY thing wrong.
Dan: EPIC FAIL
ReplyDeleteArrrggghhh! I concede that I need to brush up since (excuse)it literally has been 20+ years.(/excuse)
Nice Zilch now is there a revolver in the house...
Way to bring that grade up to a solid A, Slim. I only wish you'd let Dan simmer a while longer, or given Thomas an opportunity to fail as well.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't have stated it quite like you did, but it's six of one, and a half-dozen of the other. Zilch's "proof" is why division by zero is disallowed (except in special cases, e.g. L'Hopital's rule). Thus, your objection that if a and b each equal zero, or if a in general equals b (requiring, in either case, that c equal zero), is unnecessary; regardless of the specific relation between a and b, if a=b+c, then a-b-c=0, and the step preceding the conclusion is therefore invalid, in all cases -- not just the special case wherein a=b, which would have rendered the whole mess of operations moot anyway...
This whole mess reminds me of a question (answer?) I saw on Jeopardy not too long ago (I believe it was a teen tournament), which asked for the square root of the square root of eighty-one. The contestant answered, "three," but it would have been far more entertaining, and exactly as correct, had he answered "negative three i."
I expect the mathematically challenged among us -- and even some who are mathematically adept -- will be unaware of the fact that there are n distinct solutions to the nth root of x. As an example, the cube root of negative eight is negative two, but it is also one plus i times the square root of three, and one minus i times the square root of three. The unconvinced-yet-motivated among you can verify this without excessive difficulty.
Fortunately, in mathematics, the imaginary unit has a function... unfortunately, for Dan, the imaginary god does not.
All math geekiness aside, I am compelled to return to Dan's "witty" comment regarding his fellow juror's remark pertaining to homeschooling. I cannot imagine the frustration a student would feel if her instructor was only a day or two ahead. I am so very happy that the public school system of which I was a part, which bookended the Christian school system of which I was also a part, expected its instructors to know the material far more thoroughly than Dan describes -- you know, well enough to teach it. If Dan's kids are subjected to a homeschooling environment with Dan's level of algebraic "skill," it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they left such a system with the understanding that the universe is a mere 6,000 years old...
Hell, if you can divide by zero, what can't you do?
--
Stan
Thanks Stan, you fell better now?
ReplyDeleteCan I be redeemed slightly to say that, at the very least, I am currently smarter then a 5th grader and my oldest is 7 years old. I have time to brush up on such things as Algebra for here 10-11th birthday.
Thanks for making me feel lacking Stan. It will only make me better. Thanks for the good ol rebuke.
Oh BTW repent and trust in Jesus because the ramifications are far greater then not knowing algebra.
Oh and Stan I don't remember seeing your name on that Excel sheet either. Maybe you, Zilch, and Slim can work on it and see the Marvin name.
ReplyDeleteOh BTW repent and trust in Jesus because the ramifications are far greater then not knowing algebra.
ReplyDeleteNot according to Jesus in Matthew 19:16-19...
RE: The Excel spreadsheet thing --
I opened it, and if you'll recall, I made a comment which included detail only obtainable by having opened the file ("the busdriver couldn't stand the smell"), which I thought sufficient evidence that I had indeed legitimately solved the puzzle. I was unable to save my name to the file due to an incompatibility with my browser/OS (Firefox/Ubuntu), and due to the fact that I didn't care enough to put my name on it. If you really want, I can find the problem and post the solution, but I don't expect my capabilities in the field of mathematics are truly being challenged, and if they are, they are evidently being challenged by a guy who until recently thought that inverting a sum of terms was equivalent to the sum of the inverted terms.
Thanks for making me feel lacking Stan.
I cannot take credit for that (but you're welcome). Your feelings of inadequacy, however deserved, are due to your own insecurity, and to the understandable embarrassment at humiliating yourself. If nothing else, you should feel empowered -- you now know the answer, and you had the balls to publicly post your failed attempt at a solution.
Now, quit bothering with this, and get practicing your multiplication tables, and leave some extra time to focus on fractions. Despite your [apparent] efforts to the contrary, your kids are unlikely to be stupid -- they will easily recognize that you are inept with respect to fifth-grade math -- and they will likewise recognize that a teacher who does not know his subject matter is both not a true teacher, and not one from whom lessons should be learned. They will, like it or not, take this recognition and apply it to other subjects...
I'd highly recommend prefacing your math (and other appropriate subject) lessons with an admission regarding your lack of qualifications -- else you are guilty of lying by omission of truth, and of fraud by fostering a pretense. Of course, if you preface your lessons with such an admission, one must wonder why you would offer lessons in lieu of one who doesn't lack qualifications...
--
Stan, most handsome and humble
>>Stan
ReplyDeleteErm, the square root function deals with the principle square root. I think you mean by "there are n distinct solutions to the nth root of x" is that there are n distinct solutions to the equation x^n = a, with a being a nonzero complex. What's so beautiful about it is that these answers are equally spaced on the complex plane as points on a circle with center 0 on that plane (of radius |a| IIRC). I should Wiki that for correctness, but that's close enough for government work.
So the Jeopardy answer is correct uniquely, since square root is understood to be the principle square root.
Also, you cannot "divide by zero" even in L'Hopital's rule, even though you intuitively assess the L'Hopital "form" that way. You must always approach such a quantity as a limit. For instance, lim (x->0) sin(x)/x is "0/0 form," but it is not actually such a quantity. Its actual value is
lim (x->0)(sin(x))'/x'
= lim (x->0) cos(x)/1
= cos(0)/1
= 1
... not 0/0.
>>Dan
ReplyDeleteNow be very careful here. Hamby has correctly illustrated the account for the laws of logic, and has condensed my extended account from the previous thread; I'd like to see how you answer this, so don't ignore it - it's actually an account for the laws.
//Are these laws material or immaterial?//
These laws are epistemological, which have a material epistemic-correspondence as brain-states.
The basis for these laws is material, even though the laws themselves are epistemological. To echo Hamby's words and my words in the previous thread, to exist means to possess an identity - in short, to be means to be something in specific, and not anything else. From this, we abstract the epistemic concepts "A is A" (identity), "X is either A or non-A" (excluded middle), "X cannot be both A and non-A at the same time" (non-contradiction). For an exact account of how this corresponds to reality, please refer to the detail of my posts in the previous thread.
This is a full account of how the laws of logic arrive from reality. The laws of logic are an epistemic examination of the fact that to exist means to have a specific metaphysical identity, i.e. specific qualities with associated quantity, which do not change unless they are acted upon by other aspects of existence (which themselves possess identity that may entail a change in identities, i.e. the definition of causation).
None of this entails whether or not God exists; even if He does, He created the world through Christ, the logos of God, so unless you want to remove identity from creation and charge Christ with imperfection (contradicting Genesis 1), even as a theist you have to agree with this account of the laws of logic.
Stan's the man. He explained the fallacy better than I would have; or at the very least differently, but equally. Thanks for the rigor, Stan.
ReplyDeleteDan: no need to feel embarrassed- Americans are famous for their innumeracy. This was brought home to me forcefully when my daughter Rosalind went to high school in SF for a semester two years ago, when she was sixteen (tenth grade American). We had to send over a list of what level she had reached in various subjects here in Austria, so they could place her in the appropriate classes.
Not surprisingly, her level in American history was pretty low. But when we told them what she had studied in math, they could only reply that she was already at junior college level, and there was nothing more they could teach her in high school. And Rozzle was never even a particularly enthusiastic math student, but she knows her stuff.
Now, I have mixed feelings about forcing students to learn, say, analytic geometry. Both my kids complained incessantly that they would never need higher mathematics, and I tend to agree that most people will never have occasion to use, say, Fourier transformations.
But two things: one, it doesn't kill anyone to learn this stuff, and it sharpens the ability to think logically in general, which I believe is a good thing. And second- you never know what you might need to know. Rozzle is now considering, to our surprise and hers too, studying biochemistry, where the math will obviously come in handy. And even her brother Adam, in his computer game world, just told me that in designing a mod for a game, he needed trigonometry to calculate the point of view of a character.
Dan: I must admit with some embarrassment that I too have forgotten most of what I used to know in math. I was a math whiz in school- I won second place in a Bay Area competition in tenth grade- but if you don't use it, you lose it. My work doesn't require math any higher than familiarity with logarithms and trig, and that's about my level nowadays.
The good news is, that you can learn it or relearn it, as the case may be. If you insist on homeschooling your kids, I would take Stan's advice to heart: it's not enough to be just one step ahead of your pupils. If you want to teach something well, you must know it through and through. If you can't or won't, then you should let someone else teach your kids. And while I don't think it's necessary that everyone be a math whiz, I think that anyone who wants to take part in society and vote should at least be able to do basic math. And my algebraic equation here is pretty basic.
As Stan said, my intent here was to show that proving God's existence by means of a syllogism involving absolutes is similar to proving something algebraically by dividing by zero: dividing by zero in Euclidean mathematics yields nonsense, and invoking absolutes in the real world likewise yields nonsense. This of course does not prove that God does not exist; but it shows (I hope) the danger of trying to prove the existence of something by way of syllogisms dealing with absolutes.
Oh, and here's a Fourier transformation joke for your delectation.
ReplyDeleteDan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteCan I be redeemed slightly to say that, at the very least, I am currently smarter then a 5th grader and my oldest is 7 years old. I have time to brush up on such things as Algebra for here 10-11th birthday.
This points to a much higher level of ignorance than I expected to see. My kids went to public schools and they were doing algebra by the fifth grade with rudiments taught even earlier. That is why they do not call the class "Arithmetic" as they did way back. Arithmetic is the oldest and most elementary branch of mathematics, and is concerned only with operations on numbers which is said to be addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but in reality there are only two arithmetic operations; addition and subtraction. Multiplication is addition and division is subtraction.
Anything above Arithmetic IS algebra. It is not a good idea to wait until tenth grade to begin teaching the basics of algebra.
By the way, 0/0 is "indeterminate" and 1/0 is "undefined."
This is a perfect example of why many (in spite of what they claim) homeschoolers cannot get into many colleges, because they had inferior teachers.
>>zilch
ReplyDeleteI laughed. Hard.
Most home schooled kids test far above their public school counterparts, and they have some very good internet communities that most are using.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to ask Dan?
Do you use any internet home school program?
I understand they also organize home school sports and social programs too.
Also, I'm jealous of Brother Thomas' grasp of TAG.
I wish I had more time to study it.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete'Arrrggghhh! I concede that I need to brush up since (excuse)it literally has been 20+ years.(/excuse)'
I reckon most public school math teachers would know that you cannot go from
a=b+c
to
1/a=1/b+1/c
Seriously Dan.
That is such a basic error that you cannot possibly have enough understanding of mathematics to even teach a young child. Who knows what other basic errors you are making and passing on to your vulnerable children...
Do you use a textbook or not?
Would you also admit that you need to brush up on other subjects you teach your children?
I'm sure there are some good home-school teachers out there but on this evidence you are not one of them. You should consider getting a mathematics tutor at the very least, for your kids sake....
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI opened it, and if you'll recall, I made a comment which included detail only obtainable by having opened the file ("the busdriver couldn't stand the smell"), which I thought sufficient evidence that I had indeed legitimately solved the puzzle.
Yes, I do remember now and no I am not challenging your math skills.
Froggie,
ReplyDeleteAnything above Arithmetic IS algebra. It is not a good idea to wait until tenth grade to begin teaching the basics of algebra.
If you noticed I said I have time to brush up on such things as Algebra for here 10-11th birthday.
So maybe you need to brush up on those reading skills. :)
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete(sarcasm)Thanks for all your kind words and concerns, (/sarcasm) We are all doing quite well.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your gentleness and others can learn by your example. Although I grew up with the "kick in the ass" treatment so I am quite accustomed to the harsh criticisms from the others. I did stick my neck out for the chopping block but instead of brushing up beforehand I thought I would stab at it, with cob webs and all, with the result of as Stan said, epic fail.
I have no problem being wrong and by my failures I find out my weaknesses. Obviously now, math being one of them.
As far as my kids go they are in good hands. I don't remember doing division at age 7, like Abby is doing. She is excelling in everything she does I am impressed with her abilities to grasp things so rapidly. She must have her mothers brain. :7)
(sarcasm)Thanks for all your kind words and concerns, (/sarcasm) We are all doing quite well.
ReplyDeleteWhy the sarcasm Dan? There is nothing wrong with not knowing something, but it is wrong to deny your kids a proper education if you are not qualified to provide it.
They are clearly not going to do so well at mathematics unless you get them (or yourself) a tutor who actually understands basic mathematical concepts.
Do you use a textbook?
If so, have you read it all and made sure you understand it first?
Are you confident you will be able to understand and teach mathematics when it starts to get much harder in the years ahead?
Sentences like these make me doubt your mathematical capabilites (this is not difficult algebra at all):
I know you poisoned the well when you added (a-b) to the already simplified a=b+c.
You cannot simplify a=b+c anymore then it already is.
and
Algebra hurts my brain.
a=b+c
1/a=1/b+1/c
and
It is absolutely true that I suck at math though. :)
Hey the drug dealing pedophile neighbors of mine just called the city on me for watering 10 minutes past water times. Love thy neighbors.
ReplyDeleteDani'El,
Do you use any internet home school program?
Yes, there are so many! My kids have their own computer and all of them started on it at age 2. They navigate quite well and they think school is a blast. Currently building another faster computer for the oldest.
My kids all learned to read at age three using Starfall which they love.
I print out worksheets of math for my kids over at kidzone.
I even found a group called Homescool Dads
Pretty much everything call be taught and learned from Google. It's all there for the taking. The updated research far exceeds the textbooks in a secular school.
I understand they also organize home school sports and social programs too.
We found that a church would be best for that. Besides the kids are so friendly with everyone they have no problem making friends. Everyone thinks that being social would be an issue but the exact opposite is the case. Research says children that go to day cares/public schools are far more troublesome then homeschooled kids. I can attest to that.
Thanks for everyones concerns. My kids are getting the best education in the best environment for these times, that is for a fact. (no drugs, no gangs, no secular influences) There are sacrifices, but the rewards are so worth it.
Rhiggs,
Critique all you want I know what levels I am currently at and where I need to be to be able to teach. I will be going through my entire education all over again vicariously through my kids so any gaps will be quickly filled up.
Want to know a real kicker to this conversation? I was the Training Officer for my division in the military. I made sure everyone knew how to fight fires, replenish the ship, and combat bio/chem/nuke warfare to name a few. So my teaching abilities taught the next-gen of soldiers so you can sleep free at night. Sleep tight.
Now, if the peacocks are done displaying their plumage... we can get back to the subject at hand.
call be taught?
ReplyDeleteDan said:
ReplyDeleteSo my teaching abilities taught the next-gen of soldiers so you can sleep free at night. Sleep tight.
Great. Hopefully they won't need algebra on the front line...
Wait.
Quadratic equations...
Missile launching...
We're all screwed!!!!!!
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI would be happy to return to the subject at hand. My first comment in this thread addresses it.
I think I will "brush up" on my paleontological skills so my kids don't have go to college and learn the what paleontology actual teaches.
ReplyDeleteThis line of reasoning is absurd beyond belief.
A father who has no concept of algebra is going to home school his kids in the sciences. No. He is going to brainwash them into irrational belief systems.
I suppose, just to return to a foundational level with the original premise (that is, that the laws of logic are mind-dependent, and can be different in different minds), I challenge anyone to construct a proof of an alternate law of logic without using the law of logic it claims to replace.
ReplyDeleteThere's a Nobel Prize in it for you if you do.
Dan- I hear there's quite a meth problem inland.
ReplyDeleteAnd Amen! to a good church (hard to find these days) being a great place for the kids to get social interaction skills.
To send children to CA public schools in some areas is to throw them to the wolves.
And contrary to what many are saying here, there have been reports lately of CA PS teachers failing basic tests, even in the subjects they teach.
Some districts are so desperate, they hire just about anyone.
I've been noticing, that all the science fair, spelling bee, etc winners have been home-schoolers lately.
Praying for you and your family brother Dan.
Baruch HaShem,
Dani' El
Did this little old blog just get over 20,000 visits? Wow, that is humbling.
ReplyDeleteCongrats Dan!
ReplyDeleteAll glory to the Father and His Holy One, Messiah Yeshua!
All glory to the Father and His Holy One
ReplyDeleteI second that motion, if we are following Roberts' Rules of Order that is.
"Pretty much everything call be taught and learned from Google."
ReplyDeleteSomeone has no conception whatsoever what a teacher is, yet he considers himself a teacher.
Typical of deluded fundies.
All glory to the Father and His Holy One, Messiah Yeshua!
ReplyDeleteLove them, or be tortured by them.
Hey all. Got a bit of free time, so am visiting all the old stomping grounds. I may or may not hang around. :)
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: algebra. Whoo!
Secondly: Seriously, computer programming is algebra, and I like programming. Ergo: Whoo! Plus, I'm printing out Zilchs' puzzle to confuse my parents. Plus: does the apostrophe go there? I'm better at math than I am at english.
//
Of the Thrice: Homeschooling. I admit, the public school system is not exactly perfect, but it has one major advantages: the teachers are people who really understand what they teach. My Dad's a teacher, although he spends most of his time trying to prevent the students from chopping important bits off (he's in manual arts).
I do confess to being worried about the science education your children are going to receive, though, Dan. I really can't see them getting into biology, or cosmology, or palaentology, or archaeology, or geology, or genetics, or microphysics... you get the idea... whilst still believing the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Of course if none of your children are sciency types, this won't be an issue, but if they are then learning about these things is going to be difficult for them.
The documentation is out there: the Bible may well be compatible with evidence (and vise versa), but young earth creationism is not.
Quadrually (I think that means forthly, but it may have something to do with parabolas as well): More Presuppositionalism? Oh well: let's see what we can see.
Thomas wrote:
If logical absolutes exist only by definition then they could not be absolute. Would they exist if humankind didn’t exist (would adding 2 object to 2 objects still equal 4 objects)?
No. "Two," "Four" and "Addition" are all symbols and functions invented by humans, no matter what language you express them in. It is impossible to add 2 objects to 2 objects without a human mind, because you need a human mind to decide that the result is 4 objects. Math is a language.
Thomas wrote:
Does absolute truth exist?
No, and I'm 99.9999999999recurring% sure of that. Do I get a cookie?
Stan wrote:
...certainty is only obtainable for those things for which we can define certainty.
Thomas replied:
The problem is that you must be certain to even make this very statement!
Quasar provided the following analogy:
This economic crisis is going to get worse before it gets better
Does Quasar need to be certain of this to make this statement? If not, then why does Stan need to be certain of his statement to make it?
Quasar thinks your claim is flawed. Oh sugar, Quasar needs to go! He will see you later, and hopefully he'll be speaking in first person then like normal people.
:)
Welcome back, Quasar. That said, I must take issue with you on one point. You say:
ReplyDelete"Two," "Four" and "Addition" are all symbols and functions invented by humans, no matter what language you express them in. It is impossible to add 2 objects to 2 objects without a human mind, because you need a human mind to decide that the result is 4 objects. Math is a language.
You are forgetting bird language: at least some birds can count, and counting is addition. How they store numbers in their bird brains is of course unknown, but they must do so somehow. For instance, consider the cormorants that the Chinese train to fish:
In the 1970s, on the Li River, Pamela Egremont observed fishermen who allowed the birds to eat every eighth fish they caught. Writing in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, she reported that, once their quota of seven fish was filled, the birds "stubbornly refuse to move again until their neck ring is loosened. They ignore an order to dive and even resist a rough push or a knock, sitting glum and motionless on their perches." Meanwhile, other birds that had not filled their quotas continued to catch fish as usual. "One is forced to conclude that these highly intelligent birds can count up to seven," she wrote.
Other than that, Quasar, everything you wrote was absolutely, er, that is, pretty much true.
Quasar,
ReplyDelete"....does the apostrophe go there?"
No!
"Do I get a cookie?"
No!
I definitely agree with your missive, though. :>
Zilch wrote:
ReplyDelete"You are forgetting bird language: at least some birds can count, and counting is addition."
You are, of course, right. It was a slip of the fingers: I should have said a "sentient," or "intelligent," mind.
I hope you don't think I'm a specieist. I am entirely aware that non-human peoples are often far more intelligent than human peoples.
"Thanks for all the fish."
PS: Thanks for that link! I love birds.
I'm terrible at math.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean that Calculus (Poof!)vanished from existence when I was born?
Show me any advanced equation, any!
And I can disprove it simply by failing to understand it.
:p PlPlplplpl!
Dani' El said...
ReplyDeleteI'm terrible at math.
Does that mean that Calculus (Poof!)vanished from existence when I was born?
Show me any advanced equation, any!
And I can disprove it simply by failing to understand it.
-------------------
That would be your typical lunatic fringe fundamental religionist thinking.
He said it, not me.
rewritten-
ReplyDeleteThat was sarcasm my fundie neo-atheist fascist friend.
The faulty logic was from your side of the aisle.
That is in response to this from Quasar-
It is impossible to add 2 objects to 2 objects without a human mind, because you need a human mind to decide that the result is 4 objects.
Dani: you need to get more sleep. Just ignore the internet for a while- we'll all still be here in the morning.
ReplyDeleteDani'El, Sye, Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou're just turning circles.
You don't see the difference between 'existence' of abstract ideas and 'existence' of material things, don't you?
When the sun swallows the earth, as one day will happen, all our abstract models for describing the non-sentient mechanical mechanisms the material reality around us has (called patterns), will indeed cease to exist. (As will other abstract stuff as 'morals', 'religion', 'love', 'honor'.)
The patterns themselves won't. But those patterns are dumb and mechanical. No sign of intelligence there.
Claiming the patterns in reality exist can be proven. That's science. That's not a leap of faith.
Claiming they just exist and never change without someone making them (God) is indeed a based on a just a pinch of 'faith'.
But it is a much smaller leap of faith then claiming there is yet another pattern, all-powerful, sentient and intelligent, called 'God', who devised those patterns. So Occam's razor does apply here.
Claiming the 'Christian' God is the one devising those patterns is an outrageous leap of faith, and is only due to the human nature (of paranoia), and of course centuries of indoctrination based on unethical carrot and stick tactics (and sometimes violence).
This is falsifiable you know, if you prove contra-mechanical behavior in nature (miracles) you have proven yourself. Take your bible, call on God and walk on water or raise the dead. Jesus did it too. Do something real for once and 'save my soul'. Please. Much more effective than playing silly word games and basically showing you have very, very little understanding of logic.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteI get a good 8 hours of sleep a day.
I'm just running on Israel time.
Thanks for the concern tho'.
"That was sarcasm my fundie neo-atheist fascist friend."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that everything you say sounds like sarcasm or satire. There is no way to tell the difference with you.
You say, God told me SF will be destroyed by fire and brimstone y the end of June, 09. 99% of the people would consider that satire.
Fundies can not use satire.
Get it?
Frog-
ReplyDeleteHow about Fundie Atheists?
Don't hog the sarcasm.
Geert- Dani'el, Dan, and Sye are doing their best to save your soul, but it's in vain, because you are Belgian and have no soul. Sorry. :)
ReplyDeleteLol, zilch.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right. I most probably have no soul. Not that I'm too sorry, given the personality they attribute to their "God". :)
No fair Geert.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't say you were Belgian!
I always wondered. When I was in Holland and France I heard nothing but Belgian jokes.
What gives?
Round here the Poles get most of such jokes.
Ah, well, Dani'El,
ReplyDeleteThose "little Belgian" jokes are good-natured. They are just jealous, you know, at this little land of honey and milk. :)
Geert, do you work for the EU?
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think about that exchange yesterday about the US going to hell?
Sorry, Dani'El, I work for the Flemish gov.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean with "the exchange about the US going to hell". Where was this said? Seems a bit rude, no?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032502074.html
ReplyDeleteEU President Blasts U.S. Spending
Czech Premier Calls Obama Administration's Economic Policies 'a Road to Hell'
-----------------------
Rude maybe, but true.
Most are saying the guy is blowing off steam after his govt just got a vote of no confidence.
He said some pretty biting stuff, much of it true.
Sorry, Dani'El, I work for the Flemish gov.
ReplyDeleteYou guys have your own government? I thought the EU ran Belgium now... sorry, I couldn't resist...
Actually, I quite liked Belgium the one time I was there. I don't know about milk and honey, but I had the best maatjes haring (herring) of my life there.
"How about Fundie Atheists?"
ReplyDeleteFundamentalism comes from adherence to religious dogma.
Atheists have no dogma, they merely believe there is no God because there is no evidence for supernatural beings.
I think you might be referring to "Vocal" Atheists.
I zipped right through Belgium, but I did like the Pomme Frites.
ReplyDeleteFroggie- "there is no God because there is no evidence for supernatural beings.
Sounds like Dogma to me. Even claiming omniscience.
The father- Time
The son- Chance
The spirit- natural selection.
You have a prophet- Darwin.
You have a pope- Dawkins.
You have an orthodox priesthood- college professors who tolerate no heresy and excommunicate creationists.
And lately, you've been doing quite a bit of evangelising.
....AND
ReplyDeleteYour religion of secular humanism is the established church of state, taught in all schools to the exclusion of all others.
They teach secular humanism in American schools now? Must be something new- I sure don't remember that.
ReplyDeleteWell we are pretty old, Herr Zilch.
ReplyDeleteI shared a couple of things they're doing in CA recently.
And I see teaching evolution as teaching atheist doctrine disguised as science as well.
(Yes, as taught Evolution is founded on Atheist axioms)
I'm working on an article for my blog and some of the things the schools have been doing lately.
Even teaching Islam, living as muslims for a month etc.
Yes, as taught Evolution is founded on Atheist axioms
ReplyDeleteBull!
Also Zilch, in the University system, esp in the university system, Secular Humanism dominates.
ReplyDeleteVERY hostile to Christianity.
El Danno,
ReplyDelete"Your religion of secular humanism is the established church of state, taught in all schools to the exclusion of all others."
Please define religion.
Please.
El Danno,
ReplyDelete"Yes, as taught Evolution is founded on Atheist axioms."
You know better than that.
Showing that Genesis is not literal is merely a side effect of the ToE.
OK Froggie-
ReplyDeleteReligion- of a common bond, or belief.
In the traditional sense, concerning a belief about God, or gods, spiritual beliefs.
So the commonbelief held in a community that there is no God, qualifies as a religion.
And that Atheist community, or religion, is highly organized, funded, etc.
Froggie- You know better than that.
ReplyDeleteShowing that Genesis is not literal is merely a side effect of the ToE.
As taught Froggie.
Deistic/Theistic evolution is not taught.
As taught in the schools, Darwinian Evolution is based on Naturalism/materialism/Atheism.
As taught in the schools, Darwinian Evolution is based on Naturalism/materialism/Atheism.
ReplyDeleteMore bull, they don't even teach "Darwinian" evolution - the theory has moved on since Darwin first formulated his ideas and it has nothing to say about religion anyway.
They teach what can be observed, not what can't - if you have any evidence to support supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process then feel free to present it.
Fred-
ReplyDeleteThere is no evolutionary process to intervene in.
God is sovereign in everything, all the time.
The laws of physics are established and enforced by Him.
You say these things "just are" and that's bad science.
You cannot observe transition between a species over millions of years, and the fossil record itself destroys the theory.
Geneticists say that man came from a single common mother in Africa.
We say it was Eve in Mesopotamia.
They say there was a great narrowing of the gene pool down to a single African village, we say it was Noah's family.
The evidence is there, but modern science stamps its feet and stubbornly demands to ignore and bury it in endless weavings of Ad hoc theories.
Even to the origin of life, spacemen from Mars, anything but God is demanded in the face of the evidence.
I don't spend a lot of time on Evolution as it bores me to tears, and when all the dogmatic fantasies start going, my eyes glass over. It's a fairy tale requiring blind faith.
I really cannot understand how anyone can watch the animations of cell activity in DNA reproduction etc and believe in Evolution.
I've already thoroughly derailed this thread, but how often does a thread stay on topic?
Sigh.
Daniel said:
ReplyDeleteReligion- of a common bond, or belief.
Thats a very loose definition of religion. So loose that it is easy to fit whatever you want into it.
I assume you must define supporters of a football team as religious. They share a 'common bond' in their support. And they 'believe' that their team can win...
El Danno,
ReplyDelete"So the common belief held in a community that there is no God, qualifies as a religion."
OK! Then since my disbelief in your God qualifies as a religion, then you unbelief in Allah qualifies as a religion, thus you practice two religions. Thanks.
Actually though, my only two particular interests in religion whatsoever is keeping strong the first ammendment and keepinjg the teaching of myths out of public school science classes. Beyond that I am totally indifferent.
Dan, the man of many religions since you also don't believe in all the other gods also.
As long as you want to water down the definition to that degree it's fine by me.
It's like the school board in Kansas tried to water down the definition of science until they found that their definition would also include Astrology and psychic readings as a science. hehe.
El Danno,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I am also religious about baseball, golf, poetry, my career, my wife, my kids, my truck, and nature; not necessarily in that order.
You have just relegated your religion to the status that it is no more important than an interest in baseball. Thanks.
****Beware the Ides of June****
Rhiggs- I went further to define it as regarding God, gods, or spiritual beliefs, not including the belief that the Niners suck.
ReplyDeleteFunny, the Niners fans call themselves "the Faithful".
Froggie- OK! Then since my disbelief in your God qualifies as a religion, then you unbelief in Allah qualifies as a religion, thus you practice two religions. Thanks.
No, still one religion. My religion, Christianity has the common belief that there is no God but the Living God of the Bible.
Which of course excludes allah from being God.
Actually though, my only two particular interests in religion whatsoever is keeping strong the first ammendment and keepinjg the teaching of myths out of public school science classes. Beyond that I am totally indifferent
Actually I wish more Christians had the same zeal for evangelising that you do for the Atheist Church. ;)
You do spend a good amount of your free time on it, y'know.
I think you may be surprised at my opinions of what should be taught in the public schools.
I certainly don't want some heathen leading Christian prayers or Christian doctrine mixed in with the rest.
The time for Christians to separate from the school system was a long time ago.
I think it's one of the great failures of the American Church that a Christian school system was not RE-established. Some still exist, but there should be many more. Most of the great Universities started out as Christian institutions, but have long been lost to the world.
I wrote in my definition-
ReplyDelete---------------------
Religion- of a common bond, or belief.
In the traditional sense, concerning a belief about God, or gods, spiritual beliefs.
--------------------
You both edited out the second half. I wonder why?
Heathens, pssh! ;)
Dani' El said...
ReplyDeleteFred-
There is no evolutionary process to intervene in.
Bwahahahahaha
God is sovereign in everything, all the time.
Evidence for this assertion?
The laws of physics are established and enforced by Him.
Evidence for this assertion?
You say these things "just are" and that's bad science.
I say no such thing but you have fun with your strawman.
You cannot observe transition between a species over millions of years,
irrelevant
and the fossil record itself destroys the theory.
Bwahahahahaha
Geneticists say that man came from a single common mother in Africa.
Do they now? anything to back that up?
We say it was Eve in Mesopotamia.
They say there was a great narrowing of the gene pool down to a single African village, we say it was Noah's family.
Strawman number 3
The evidence is there, but modern science stamps its feet and stubbornly demands to ignore and bury it in endless weavings of Ad hoc theories.
Persecution complex
Even to the origin of life, spacemen from Mars, anything but God is demanded in the face of the evidence.
Evolution has nothing to say on abiogenesis
I don't spend a lot of time on Evolution
It shows
as it bores me to tears, and when all the dogmatic fantasies start going, my eyes glass over. It's a fairy tale requiring blind faith.
The irony, it burns almost as much as the stupid.
I really cannot understand how anyone can watch the animations of cell activity in DNA reproduction etc and believe in Evolution.
Argument from ignorance.
I've already thoroughly derailed this thread, but how often does a thread stay on topic?
Sigh.
About as often as Dan's managed to debunk atheists on this blog (i.e. never).
Then since my disbelief in your God qualifies as a religion, then you unbelief in Allah qualifies as a religion, thus you practice two religions. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Froggie. Dani: that's just the beginning. If atheism is a religion, then your disbelief in Santa and the Fly Spaghetti Monster are also religions. You must be a very religious person: almost as religious as Froggie and me, who disbelieve in at least one more god than you do, and believe in one you don't, Lord Darwin! That is, according to your definition of "religion". I'll second Rhiggs: tell us exactly what you mean by "religion". Are soccer fans practicing "religion" when they cheer or fight in pubs after the game?
And I see teaching evolution as teaching atheist doctrine disguised as science as well.
(Yes, as taught Evolution is founded on Atheist axioms)
Freddie called you on this, and so will I: evolution, at least the way I was taught, is not founded on atheist axioms: like all of science, it is indifferent to the question of whether God exists or not. In fact, it is not founded on "axioms" at all, but on observation and theorizing. For that matter, do you even know what an "axiom" is?
Also Zilch, in the University system, esp in the university system, Secular Humanism dominates.
What do you mean by "secular humanism", Dani? I went through the university system, and was not dominated by secular humanism. Maybe I just took the wrong courses.
El Danno,
ReplyDelete"I wrote in my definition-
---------------------
Religion- of a common bond, or belief.
In the traditional sense, concerning a belief about God, or gods, spiritual beliefs."
Oh, then you do admit that the definition of religion is based on a supernatural deity.
You, sir, have been hoisted by your own petard
Zilch- Thank you, Froggie. Dani: that's just the beginning. If atheism is a religion, then your disbelief in Santa and the Fly Spaghetti Monster are also religions.
ReplyDeleteI responded to Froggie with-
"No, still one religion. My religion, Christianity has the common belief that there is no God but the Living God of the Bible.
Which of course excludes allah (and Santa, the Spaghetti monster) from being God.
I guess that's called a strawman?
And et tu Zilchus?
For editing out the second half of my definition which was-
"In the traditional sense, concerning a belief about God, or gods, spiritual beliefs."
So Soccer's out. Surfing? in.
Very spiritual dude.
Axiom- A presupposed self evident truth requiring no proof.
You can get a degree in Hip Hop culture at Cal Berkeley these days, Zilch.
Oy, suns coming up, almost bed time. Prayer time folks.
I'll see how Dan cleaned up after me this afternoon.
See ya later!
Baruch HaShem,
Dani' El
Dani'El
ReplyDeleteAbout Mr. Topolanek's speach-
Well, if he's right, it's not a road to hell but no worse than a further devaluation of the US dollar. However, if Obama is right or not is completely dependent on the validity of Mr. JM Keynes' theories in this particular situation.
A bit off topic, though.
About our Pommes Frites
Now you know french fries are not French at all, they are actually very native to and invented in Belgium. :)
Your religion of secular humanism is the established church of state, taught in all schools to the exclusion of all others.
Interesting, because secular means "no interference of a particular church" and humanism means to affirm the dignity and worth of all people. Is that a church which should be indoctrinated? Don't think so. I think you have a wrong conception of both "secular" and "humanism".
Because, you if you say that, you're basically advocating that a school teaches principles contrary to the Universal Declaration of the Human Rights (as a counterpart to humanism). Moreover, 'neutralising' secularism, you want non-neutrality. So, one particular faith to dominate your public schools to the exclusion of others. Or maybe, in the best case, you want all possible faiths to be taught in school, like sun worship, satanism, Norse and Aztec gods, scientology, and other stuff like horoscopes or card-reading.
My previous post
I've given my world view on logic and the nature of the world, Dani'El, earlier. You'll say I'm a agnostic atheist, probably, but what's wrong with it? How do you "disprove" such view?
Daniel said:
ReplyDeleteI wrote in my definition-
---------------------
Religion- of a common bond, or belief.
In the traditional sense, concerning a belief about God, or gods, spiritual beliefs.
--------------------
You both edited out the second half. I wonder why?
Heathens, pssh! ;)
The key phrase here is 'In the traditional sense'. It implies that there are non-traditional forms of religion that are defined as simply 'of a common bond, or belief.'
So your defintion of religion still implies that football fans are religious, just not in the traditional sense...
Is atheism a religion? I would say no but I guess it depends on your interpretation of 'belief'. If I do not think there is a God due to the lack of evidence, I do not necessarily *believe* (read: have faith in) the fact that there is no God, I just haven't been convinced yet. Its the same as my opinion on the Loch Ness Monster. It is possible that there is such a monster, but until convincing evidence emerges I will remain an a-Nessiest...
Its called skepticism. Its a decision-making process, not a religion...
Sorry to everyone for dropping out just as it's getting interesting, but I've really got to get to bed.
ReplyDeleteI'll be sure to get back this afternoon.
Shalom,
Dani' El
Geneticists say that man came from a single common mother in Africa.
ReplyDeleteThey don't actually say that.
Now I'm waiting for you to say "Yes they do," with links, so I can correct how badly you've misrepresented them. Please don't keep me waiting. :)
"In the traditional sense, concerning a belief about God, or gods, spiritual beliefs."
ReplyDeleteWell, the traditional sense is believing in a god / gods. And, by that part, atheism would not be a religion. What I am seeing is a rather ad hoc attempt to include one thing under a term that does not fit the broad pattern.
Dani, you say:
ReplyDeleteSo Soccer's out. Surfing? in.
Very spiritual dude.
Hey, I agree with you! But only if it's body surfing. If you have a board between you and Mother Ocean, you are not surfing, but just messing around.
Geert- yes, I nearly forgot the frietkoten and their wonderful fries. Lekker! Here in benighted Austria, the fries are no better than in the States.
OK caught up. Nice discussion thus far.
ReplyDeleteSo let me ask did matter come from nothing or did matter exists eternally?
I fully understand "I don't know" is the common answer but if you were to guess, which one?
I fully understand "I don't know" is the common answer but if you were to guess, which one?
ReplyDeleteMy answer would be "yes".
BTW for my own reference I added "Algebra 101" to my links to brush up before the teaching begins. See homeschooling helps everyone involved.
ReplyDelete:7)
Good for you, Dan. Let me know if you need any help.
ReplyDeleteDan said:
ReplyDelete'So let me ask did matter come from nothing or did matter exists eternally?
I fully understand "I don't know" is the common answer but if you were to guess, which one?'
I don't know but my *guess* would also be yes.
Matter/energy has always existed.
We have no reason to suspect that it has never existed. Some people may think that a state of nothingness is somehow more natural and that for matter/energy to exist is a highly improbable outcome. But why? Somethingness is all we know and all we have ever experienced, so why assume that nothingness has ever actually existed (if you know what I mean!)? To assume that all was once a state of nothingness is to imagine something that is highly improbable according to our experiences.
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteFirst sorry for my English. I should of said, So let me ask did matter come from nothing or matter existed eternally? Moving on.
So great you believe that matter/energy existed for eternity. That the universe had a beginning from a huge "bang" and that matter/energy then expanded outward. So for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity. All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up.
So, what initiated the very first Law of Motion, the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by "outside" force. Can you now explain the "outside" force?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteGuessing is the game here, but science has some answers.
Time "slows down" in great gravitational fields (called Gravitational Time Dilation - see Einstein's special relativity theory).
Now, you can imagine that the singularity at the big bang in a single point would have a huge gravitational field. So time might not exist in that point. Time you know, is nothing but change.
Hence, it is well possible that time started at the big bang... and that there was no "time before" the big bang. And, when there is no time before, no need for 'root cause' either. So, a non-intelligent, mechanical big bang would be 'root cause' of all.
And if there is a root cause for the big bang, why does it need to be aware and intelligent? Why not a 'dumb' collection of 'mechanical laws of nature'? These are just as timeless and universal as any "gods".
If you ask me 'who created these laws'? I'd answer that these natural laws would be "by nature" less complex than any aware intelligence which would devise those laws (the intelligence would "include" understanding of the laws in its complexity plus other possible laws AND the capability to predict ALL effects). So then, what then created that highly complex, intelligent God?
But this is guessing, you know.
However, as I said, the theory of mechanical-only laws can easily be falsified by proving that a non-material intelligence performs observable, non-mechanical feats. One would call this "miracles". Can you provide us with observable miracles by calling on your bible to invoke God? Like walking on water or raising the dead?
Geert,
ReplyDeleteTime "slows down" in great gravitational fields (called Gravitational Time Dilation - see Einstein's special relativity theory).
Heard of it thanks. Thinking out loud maybe GTD has something to do with why we see stars today (time) that are many light years (distance) away. I will ponder that one for a while.
Like walking on water or raising the dead?
I see those things all the time, just visit us here in California.
Surfers are attempting to "walk" on water everyday and the Hospitals have many people that have been raised from the dead.
Sorry short on my own time. Needless to say my stomach isn't large enough to dilate my own time constraints. I am working on it though. :)
How does one measure the gravitational pull of my stomach?
Thinking out loud maybe GTD has something to do with why we see stars today (time) that are many light years (distance) away. I will ponder that one for a while.
ReplyDeleteI would encourage you to do so, Dan. My only fear is that you'll confirm your preconceived notion that the universe is ~6,000 years old when you manipulate the equations...
actual time == "a"
perceived time == "b"
dilated time == "c"
if a = b + c, then 1/a = 1/b + 1/c...
Maybe, just maybe, before you start nuking brain cells worrying about time dilation, you should get past fifth grade algebra... After that, trigonometry, pre-calculus, a year's worth of calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations, you might be sufficiently prepared to tackle Special Relativity. In fact, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt -- you probably only need algebra and trig to get a reasonably sound grasp of its implications.
You know what? Next time you spill your thoughts all over your keyboard, you should have somebody read them for you to see if it would be wise to post them.
--
Stan
Hmmm... That came off a lot more combative than I had intended; it was supposed to be funny, not angry.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI laughed very hard at that dig. Great stuff. Never thought of it as vicious, if you were worried about that. Yea, right.
Truth does hurt. It easily pierces the soul in denial. Is that what it feels like to be an Atheist? If so I will remain a Christian since that type of pain is unbearable.
You crack me up. I hate when you are so right that I cannot deny it.
BTW Using my algebra and after calculating things I come up with universe being around 14 billion years old so you are right I need to play catch up. :P
"So for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity."
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate strawman inventor speaks again.
There was no bang, the was expansion. We know the condition of the universe at one trillionth of a second after the expansion started but one trillionth of a second before that we do not know.
It could have been a universe collapsing on itself and the singularity actually only lasted for less than a trillionth of a second.
You don't understand physics any better than you do algebra because you can't do physics without algebra.
So, go ahead and beat your strawman to death. It'll get you nowhere.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAs you study the essence of time remember this:
Time flys like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
Geert: Great post. I was going to say something like that but you beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteSomething I always thought funny about gravitational time dilation, with respect to the young universe theory, is this: seen from the inside, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Seen from the outside, without Time dilation, it's actually older. :) If you go all the way back to a mathematical singularity, it's infinitely old when seen from the outside.
Those first few microseconds may have taken a lot longer than we appreciate...
Froggie wrote:
ReplyDelete"Time flys like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana."
OK, I laughed at that one.
But what if it's a watermelon?
"So, what initiated the very first Law of Motion, the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by "outside" force. Can you now explain the "outside" force?"
ReplyDeleteYou first asked for a guess. Now you use the infantile rhetorical device of expanding that to asking a definitive question.
You are a natural born twister of logic. This unmeritous ability just might if you actually would take the time to learn something rather than constantly parroting fundamental circumlocutions.
Truth does hurt. It easily pierces the soul in denial. Is that what it feels like to be an Atheist? If so I will remain a Christian since that type of pain is unbearable.
ReplyDeleteActually, Dan, you get used to the pain after a while. Every morning, when I wake up crippled by fear of Hell, I cheer myself up with the thought that I won't have to be spending eternity with Martin Luther, Billy Sunday, and Jeffrey Dahmer. What also helps is beer- lots of beer.
Geert- nice comment. I take back all the nasty things I said about Belgians. For the moment, anyway.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteBTW for my own reference I added "Algebra 101" to my links to brush up before the teaching begins. See homeschooling helps everyone involved.
----------------------------
You just don't get it, Dan.
If people in general could "teach themselves," there would be no need for teachers.
Formal education with formal educators is a very efficient way of gaining "valid" knowledge.
Maybe you can relate to this: I have been studying college level courses and have come to a standstill or roadblock and in spite of all I can find to read, or how many ways I have tried to understand something i could ot conceptualize the idea or have a built in error in thinking. The next day in class I ask the professor the question and sometimes in a simple sentence or two I've had those "eurika" moments.
I can't count the times. These experienced teacher have anticipated these questions and developed examples and graphics over theyears such that they can best communicate the ideas. That is what makes them teachers. Not just that they pass out books and read from them. In fact, I have taken courses where the professor rarely refered to the book, yet at the end the book was easy to understand.
This is the downfall of homeschooling. The supposed teacher is not qualified, nor has the experience to help the student formulate the synergies between the ideas being taught.
Home schooled students often end up just going past certain items perhaps thinking they understand them, but they do not. They often learn cetain collections of facts but do not tie them together.
Anyone who tries to dismiss the value of a trained teacher is just plain ignorant of the value of teachers.
Try teaching yourself how the quadratic equation works from the textbook. With no decent teacher it could take a long time and a lot of people would just give up in the end, but a good teacher will begin the module with an explanation of what it is why it is and what it does. They go far beyond the textbook and make the learning efficient and productive.
Try learning chemistry strictly from a textbook. Good luck.
Remember, the average kid has an IQ of 100. The average student is not an intuitive learners as many gifted students are. Homeschooled students who do make it to valid colleges are usually found to be in the gifted range of 120 and up.
The average student will learn more rapidly and have a much better understanding of the subjects when directed by a good teacher.
I say this irespective of the religious agenda that motivates you because there are some, many even, fantastic religious schools out there.
The hidden agenda of most homeschoolers is that they do not want their kids in public schools yet they do not want to pay the price to send their kids to a reigious school and they are doing their kids a vast disservice.
"But what if it's a watermelon?"
ReplyDeleteNote:
Discussion of the aerodynamics of a banana vs watermelon will be presented tonight at 8PM in the aerospace lecture hall.
Froggie: reserve me a seat, on the banana demonstration side. You can tell me about the aerodynamics of the watermelon afterwards.
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteSo great you believe that matter/energy existed for eternity.
Dan starts off with a strawman. No, I said I don't know, but that would be my *guess*. Remember you asked for a guess? Can you appreciate the difference Dan?
That the universe had a beginning from a huge "bang" and that matter/energy then expanded outward.
Not exactly. I simply accept the data suggesting that about 14 billion years ago there was a massive expansion of spacetime. I simply do not know what happened prior to that, so our universe may not have begun then at all...
So for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity.
Perhaps, but not necessarily. Our universe may have contracted immmediately prior to the big bang. Or our universe may have been 'born' in another universe. No one knows.
All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up.
Again no...see above
So, what initiated the very first Law of Motion, the law of inertia?
I don't know.
Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by "outside" force. Can you now explain the "outside" force?
No. But if you are suggesting that God is the outside force then you are begging the question. Can you explain the "outside" force that acted upon God?
Perhaps you think that an "outside" force is unnecessary for God because God exists eternally. Well then I can simply assert that matter/energy exists eternally.
The God explanation is actually more complicated (thus less probable) than mine because it includes an extra variable (God):
God explanation:
God ---> Energy/Matter
My explanation:
Energy/Matter
There may have always been something (energy/matter). To suggest that there was once nothing is to suggest something outside of our experiences (IMHO).
Truth does hurt. It easily pierces the soul in denial. Is that what it feels like to be an Atheist?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Geert- nice comment. I take back all the nasty things I said about Belgians. For the moment, anyway.
ReplyDeleteThank you, zilch. :)
However, given joking about human affiliations is becoming more and more politically incorrect, I think we Belgians should volunteer becoming the world's comic relief. See, we are already by far the nation with the lowest national pride.
So please, have some largely good-natured fun about Belgians and do have some of our beer to go with it. :-)
Okay, Geert, I'll take you up on that- the beer and the joke. Here's one I heard in Holland:
ReplyDeleteHow was copper wire invented? Two Belgians fighting over a penny. :)
But are you sure that Belgian national pride is lower than Austrian? I thought we were at the bottom of the barrel...
Btw your English is heel goed. I wish my Nederlands, oops, I mean Vlaams, were that good.
"The Most Gratuitous Use of the Word 'Belgium' in a Serious Screenplay. It's very prestigious."
ReplyDelete"The most gratuitous use of which word?" asked Arthur, with a determined attempt to keep his brain in neutral.
"Belgium," said the girl, "I hardly like to say it."
"Belgium?" exclaimed Arthur.
"I think," she said, restraining herself, "that you should restrict that sort of remark to something artistic."
"You sound as if I just said something unspeakable rude."
"You did."
- Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything
Dank je, Zilch. It's indeed Vlaams. ;)
ReplyDeleteHowever, that joke you made would typically be a Flemish joke about the Dutch, as the Hollanders are known here for their supposed avarice.
Like:
What's the first line in a Dutch cooking book?
"Borrow an egg..."
Dutch jokes will typically be about the 'domme Belgen' (dumb Belgians), and would be like this:
The Belgians are going to launch their first space rocket.
One of the reporters asks "what is your destination?".
"Awel", answers the Belgian, "we're flying to the sun".
"To the sun?", asks the reporter, "But... won't your rocket melt!?"
The Belgian smiles and says "We're not crazy, you know... We'll be going at night."
Geert- maybe the Dutch who told me that joke "borrowed" it from the Belgians...
ReplyDeleteHere in Vienna, the butts of such jokes are typically the Burgenländer, the inhabitants of the southeastern part of Austria, who are supposed to be even stupider than the Belgians. An example:
A planeload of Austrians is on its way to Thailand for sex tourism. The tour guide stands up in the front and asks, "how many condoms do you have with you?" One person after another says "One hundred", or "Fifty" or "Seventy-five". But the Burgenländer stands up and says, "Thirty-six". When the tour guide asked him, "why only thirty-six?" he answered, "I did my best, but I couldn't get any more on". Sorry....
Zilch- Geert- maybe the "Dutch" who told me that joke "borrowed" it from the Belgians...
ReplyDeleteI thought it was "Hollander" and I guess my memory was right about the Belgian jokes.
And Geert, what do Belgians do to that mayonnaise sauce for the Pomme Frite?
Although it was over 20 years ago, I still remember it. I was a typical Yank who only knew ketchup and fries and it was delicious.
A delicious beer and fried taters with mayo and satay being my only memories of Belgium.
@Zilch,
ReplyDeleteHeheh, nice one :)
@Dani'El,
A delicious beer and fried taters with mayo and satay being my only memories of Belgium.
Without any doubt, that would be a very typical Belgian "common" meal.
Mayonnaise is still the favorite here in Belgium and suits the best with fries, but Ketchup becomes common too, nowadays, as it is much healthier.
However, less known is that in the traditional Belgian keuken or cuisine almost nothing is fried. If you dare to ask fries in a 'true' restaurant, you might have to deal with an angry chef. :)
To get on the better side of this chef, ask his advice on which of the countless beers suits best with the main course.
Between fries and beer, I did not find my counter-arguments "debunked". So I suggest the 'forever' is dropped for now?
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, more and more, I see the arguments of some of the atheïsts 'bunked' (getting clear and precise) here on this site.
Geert:
ReplyDeleteAre you kidding? He's completely ignored my direct reply to his post. He seems utterly incapable of addressing any points. I would say that his attempt at "debunking" failed completely.
Pvblivs: I think you need to reread what Geert said: he agrees with you. By the way, my spelling checker thinks that you are a bivalve.
ReplyDeleteGeert: yes, you are right: the atheists here are bunking. But you have yet to debunk my contention that the Belgian government is not just a vestigial organ of the EU. :lol:
Hoist on my own petard: of course I meant my contention that the Belgian government is just a vestigial organ of the EU. It's daylight savings' fault...
ReplyDeletethe Belgian government is just a vestigial organ of the EU.
ReplyDeleteOh, I only wish it would. At least one could call that a vision (or even a policy).
No, no, we are governed by the too-many-smalltime-interests syndrome, giving birth to a too-many-idiots-in-power disorder.
No, no, we are governed by the too-many-smalltime-interests syndrome, giving birth to a too-many-idiots-in-power disorder.
ReplyDeleteAh, so your government is based on the Austrian system.
Normally, I would continue on my way, as equally insignificant European countrymen rattle their canes at one another, but I'm afraid you'd both think one or the other was winning if no one stepped in to inform you that Austria = Belgium < |United States| << Canada.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not even from Canada.
Austrians and Belgians teasing one another... It's like listening to Siegfried and Roy argue, or listening to the pitcher and catcher argue about the balls.
You guys need good old U.S. Americans with maps to like such as correct your the Europe like such as.
Dorks.
--
Stan
Chris Mackey:
ReplyDeleteYou can't prove there is no God, I can't prove that there is one.
We're even.
If you follow one of Atheism's dogmas -relativism- to its conclusion then my delusion's no better than yours. So why convert me to yours? I enjoy conversing with you, but from your end, I can't imagine why expend the energy to be on this blog thread? Why not watch another round of Sex in the City and go to the bar instead? Sound like a good idea? Then at least your actions would match your worldview!
The fact that you're here shows that you care about truth. But in the worldview that denies God, truth can only be a nervous tick, a psychological trope. It's human nature to want something to be true. I say atheism is a kind of self-hatred because it hates that part the human person which continues to proclaim that there is truth. That is why I will always see atheism is by nature *anti* humanistic.
It seeks to destroy that part of the person that is open to receiving the understanding of God.
Chris, there *is* something true, someone true. and you are always welcome back, with love, if ever you change your mind.
Stan: and what exactly do you have against dorks? Be specific.
ReplyDelete3graces: welcome! I hope you don't mind if I reply too, so you can have the viewpoint of more than one atheist. You say:
Why not watch another round of Sex in the City and go to the bar instead? Sound like a good idea? Then at least your actions would match your worldview!
While I can't speak for Chris, this doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I don't even have a TV, and from what I've heard, have less than no interest in watching Sex in the City. And I don't like bars: too much smoke and too loud. If I'm going to drink, I'd rather do it at home or at friends' places, with good food and good company.
You see, what atheists like to do is just as varied as what Christians, or anyone else, likes to do. I'm willing to bet that there are lots of Christians out there who like to watch Sex in the City and go to bars. That's fine- more power to them. Being an atheist does not mean having a particular set of desires or behaviors: it simply means not believing in gods.
I say atheism is a kind of self-hatred because it hates that part the human person which continues to proclaim that there is truth. That is why I will always see atheism is by nature *anti* humanistic.
It seeks to destroy that part of the person that is open to receiving the understanding of God.
Sigh. I can't count the number of times I've heard this: Christians telling me that I must hate myself, and that I actively try to shut out knowledge of God. In the first place, you are not God: you have no privileged access to my thoughts and desires, so you are in no position to tell me what I think or desire- any more than I am in such a position with regards to you. If I believed I knew as much about you as you believe you know about me (or Chris), I could tell you that Christianity seeks to destroy that part of your person that is open to receiving the understanding of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
In the second place, I do seek truth, in the sense of wanting to know as much as I can about this marvelous world we live in. I am open to any truths the world has to show me. But so far, I don't see any reason to believe in gods. If you can show me any such reason, please do so.
cheers from springy Vienna, zilch
Hi Zilch,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nice welcome! :)
"While I can't speak for Chris, this doesn't sound like a good idea to me. I don't even have a TV, and from what I've heard, have less than no interest in watching Sex in the City. And I don't like bars: too much smoke and too loud. If I'm going to drink, I'd rather do it at home or at friends' places, with good food and good company.
You see, what atheists like to do is just as varied as what Christians, or anyone else, likes to do. I'm willing to bet that there are lots of Christians out there who like to watch Sex in the City and go to bars. That's fine- more power to them. Being an atheist does not mean having a particular set of desires or behaviors: it simply means not believing in gods."
OK, I wasn't saying that any particular behaviour is linked to any particular religion or non-religion. One can be an atheist and go home to a cup of hot cammomile and an evening spent playing classical violin rather than posting on this blog- I'm not casting aspersions on the intelligence or cultural habits of atheists.
Many atheists are great, brilliant wizards, in my opinion.
I don't think you, an atheist, hate yourself, either, you sound like a fun guy or gal who has happy habits who generally enjoys life without self-loathing - but what do I know?
Agreed, I am explicitly NOT God!
I do not have access to your thoughs or emotions and I cannot read your soul.
I have said that I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a God any more than you can prove the opposite, and that we're even on that score.
The position of the atheist that I don't understand, and which I am not getting any good answers on here is WHY.
WHY - in a worldview which denies objective truth - are some atheists interested in convincing the faithful that they are wrong to believe in God?
Why does it matter to atheists what anyone else believes? If we're all just here for the weekend, so to speak, and dead and gone and worm food at the end, who cares what you believe while you're here?
As I understand it, it's all a delusion anyway following the atheist perspective - you're having an atheist delusion and I'm having a Catholic delusion.
It seems that based on atheisms tenets, it should be a non-issue. It also seems atheists should be eager to question their atheism. Perhaps that's why the athiests are here?
I'm not trying to be catty or nasty, just trying to understand and get my point across, too.
Zilch - oops, I just looked at your picture, obviously, you're a guy!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nice reply, 3graces. So you're Catholic? See you in Hell...
ReplyDeleteJust kidding, but as I'm sure you know, lots of Protestants say that Catholics are just as bad as atheists or worse. Me, I don't care: my best friend here in Vienna, Stefan, is a pious Catholic, a great guy, and one of the smartest people I know (and I know lots of smart people).
You say:
WHY - in a worldview which denies objective truth - are some atheists interested in convincing the faithful that they are wrong to believe in God?
Why does it matter to atheists what anyone else believes? If we're all just here for the weekend, so to speak, and dead and gone and worm food at the end, who cares what you believe while you're here?
Excellent questions. I can't speak for all atheists, but I couldn't care less whether or not I convince any believers that they are wrong to believe in God. There are two reasons, no three reasons, I have for arguing with believers.
First, and by far the most important: religion impinges upon my life in many ways, and some of these ways are uncomfortable and even dangerous. People who believe in Armageddon and push for WWIII are not people I want to be in positions of power, and people who want to push religion in science classes are part of the reason that America is becoming a second-rate nation in terms of technological know-how.
Second: I'm constantly searching myself for the reasons I believe what I do, and the reasons others believe as they do. It's simply a fascinating subject.
Third: I just love a good argument, especially if everyone can stay friends despite having diametrically opposed ideals. Since I am part of a small and (in America) hated minority, and I don't see any prospects for everyone agreeing about religion anytime in the near future, it behooves me to learn as much as I can about peaceful coexistence.
Anyway- cheers from finally sunny Vienna, zilch
Zilch:
ReplyDeleteI have heard "are you kidding?" used in an emphatic agreement and to show that something was more strongly true. That is how I was using it there. I apologize for any confusion.
Pvblivs: no apology necessary. That usage of "are you kidding" is new to me. It reminds me of an expression in Viennese dialect that is similarly two-faced: "bist du deppert". Literally, this means "are you crazy (or stupid)" and can be used this way, but it can also mean "yes, that's crazy (or stupid)".
ReplyDelete"There are two reasons, no three reasons, I have for arguing with believers.
ReplyDeleteFirst, and by far the most important: religion impinges upon my life in many ways, and some of these ways are uncomfortable and even dangerous. People who believe in Armageddon and push for WWIII are not people I want to be in positions of power, and people who want to push religion in science classes are part of the reason that America is becoming a second-rate nation in terms of technological know-how.
- All science is theory. Why should something which disproves itself every decade or so should be sacrosanct and considered above other understandings of how things happen in the world? Science looks for patterns, finds them over and over again on micro and meta levels, and never looks for a source of patterns. Allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in schools would be the honest thing to do, because it is another theory about how things might've happened - and one which actually makes more sense when looking at patterns throughout the universe; when taking into account how statistically unlikely it is that life should exist. I will never say that evolution or geology or whatever science shouldn't be taught. But allowing for another theory would be a welcome balance to other points of view about how and why things happen.
- Most religious people are not looking for WWIII. The end of days is another story - it will come regardless of anything we do or don't do - and we cannot bring it on by our action or inaction. So those trying to precipitate it by creating some nuclear meltdown are misguided.
"Second: I'm constantly searching myself for the reasons I believe what I do, and the reasons others believe as they do. It's simply a fascinating subject."
-Zilch, bravo. I love people who search for reasons for what they believe. I'm glad you're on this website. But I fail to see why searching for what you believe equals a desire to encourage people to switch to atheism? Maybe I'm misunderstanding - maybe you were answering my question about why an atheist would be here. If so, point taken.
"Third: I just love a good argument, especially if everyone can stay friends despite having diametrically opposed ideals. Since I am part of a small and (in America) hated minority, and I don't see any prospects for everyone agreeing about religion anytime in the near future, it behooves me to learn as much as I can about peaceful coexistence."
-It's good to be able to talk about these things. But the atheistic worldview is a threat to itself, because it is a threat to humanity itself and to peaceful coexistence. Here's why. If we can't see ourselves as sacred and sacramental body and soul unions, we begin, if even on a subtle level, not to be able to distinguish what makes us special - what makes us different from a chimp or a dog or a rock. When we lose that understanding of what a *person* is, we lose our ability to know why we should not become literal "human resources" to be utilized - plastic, a rock, a bit of oil shale, tissue from child's body to be used to test drugs on (happening in Belgium now) - it's the tool-happy, scientific world view - uninformed by compassion or understanding for what people are - that gives us WWIII. We are already in WWIII- but it's a war like none we've ever seen - individuals will wage this on themselves in their own minds. You can't destroy the *idea* of the human person without at some point destroying the dignity of the human person eventually. We are living that eventuality.
So when you say Armageddon-happy, religious nuts are dangerous, who wouldn't agree?
What is more subtly dangerous is the slow death of human person hood - that, I'm afraid, atheism contributes to, wittingly or unwittingly.
Hence my great dismay that people of the atheistic belief system perhaps don't see this - atheists are good people. Good enough to see how the end of the purely scientific, atheistic, materialistic world view eventually contributes to a lesser respect for human life.
I know I'll face a firestorm of crap for this, but I just have to say it. Sure, sure, we've had the crusades, jihad, etc.. we've also had many atheistic "crusades" just as bloodthirsty. People are people - and people left to their own natures are not so nice.
-Also, atheists are not a hated minority in america anymore. Atheists are the new darlings of the American media.
If you want to see the direction of American hatred - look towards Orthodoxy of all stripes. Especially hatred towards Catholics! One of the last P.C. whipping boys!
Hey Gracie! Coming right back at you:
ReplyDelete- All science is theory. Why should something which disproves itself every decade or so should be sacrosanct and considered above other understandings of how things happen in the world?
Science corrects itself constantly, but it doesn't really "disprove" itself: proofs only obtain in systems of formal logic such as mathematics. Thus science is not sacrosanct: religion, on the other hand, is.
Science looks for patterns, finds them over and over again on micro and meta levels, and never looks for a source of patterns.
On the contrary: the source of many patterns is quite well understood. For instance, crystals are more patterned (or orderly) than the solution from which they precipitate. The source of this additional orderliness is to be found in the structure of the molecules plus an input of energy. Why there is any order at all is still a mystery, true: but why not? And positing a God as the source of order begs the question where God's order came from, doesn't give us any information about the world, and is not supported by any evidence. I'd rather just say "I don't know" than "Goddidit": it is just as informative, and a lot simpler.
Allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in schools would be the honest thing to do, because it is another theory about how things might've happened - and one which actually makes more sense when looking at patterns throughout the universe; when taking into account how statistically unlikely it is that life should exist.
How would it be "honest" to teach intelligent design? ID has no hypotheses, no research, and no evidence going for it. All it is, is a slick ad campaign to bypass peer review and appeal to popular (Christian) opinion, in order to force religion onto kids in public schools.
I will never say that evolution or geology or whatever science shouldn't be taught. But allowing for another theory would be a welcome balance to other points of view about how and why things happen.
If you say we should "teach the controversy", despite the fact that the "controversy" is not a scientific but a political and religious controversy, I say we should go whole hog: if we let ID in, we should also teach flat earth cosmology, astrology, and Holocaust denial. They all have just as much evidence as ID.
But the atheistic worldview is a threat to itself, because it is a threat to humanity itself and to peaceful coexistence. Here's why. If we can't see ourselves as sacred and sacramental body and soul unions, we begin, if even on a subtle level, not to be able to distinguish what makes us special - what makes us different from a chimp or a dog or a rock. When we lose that understanding of what a *person* is, we lose our ability to know why we should not become literal "human resources" to be utilized - plastic, a rock, a bit of oil shale, tissue from child's body to be used to test drugs on (happening in Belgium now) - it's the tool-happy, scientific world view - uninformed by compassion or understanding for what people are - that gives us WWIII.
The question is, do you have any evidence whatsoever that atheists are less moved by compassion than believers? The United States is by far the most religious first-world nation, and it is also by far the largest producer of weapons and environmental damage and waste. It also has by far the worst health care system in the first world, and by far the highest rate of teenage pregnancy. Compared to countries with a much higher rate of atheism, such as Sweden, the United States looks pretty bad. So what's so destructive about atheism?
As I said, I'm a pragmatist. It doesn't matter much to me whether someone is religious or not, or whether or not they are a "true" Christian or whatever. What matters to me is how people behave, and what they do to make the world a better place for all of us and our children. Didn't someone once say something about "by their fruits shall ye know them"? And the fruits of religion are not noticeably better than the fruits of atheism, as far as I can see.
cheer from sunny (it's about time, after five weeks of unrelenting rain) Vienna, zilch
3graces,
ReplyDeleteAll science is theory.
Incorrect. Here are 81 of the many reasons why you are just flat wrong...
Why should something which disproves itself every decade or so should be sacrosanct and considered above other understandings of how things happen in the world?
You're describing religion here, right...?
Science looks for patterns, finds them over and over again on micro and meta levels, and never looks for a source of patterns.
Incorrect. Are you really claiming scientists never look for the source of an observation? So you think science is just data collection. Are you for real...?!
Allowing "intelligent design" to be taught in schools would be the honest thing to do, because it is another theory about how things might've happened - and one which actually makes more sense when looking at patterns throughout the universe; when taking into account how statistically unlikely it is that life should exist.
Incorrect.
Firstly if you teach ID you also have to teach astrology and voodoo as they are equally valid if the definition of science is widened to accommodate ID. Even Behe was forced to concede this point on the stand at Dover.
Secondly, the statistics on the unlikeliness of life are miniscule compared to the statistics on the unlikeliness of an eternal creator powerful enough to create a whole universe. How about the unlikeliness of a woman, made from a man with no parents, eating a magic apple on the advice of a talking snake? I'd like to see those stats!!
I will never say that evolution or geology or whatever science shouldn't be taught.
Good.
But allowing for another theory would be a welcome balance to other points of view about how and why things happen.
Hmmm... like the way astrology uses planetary movements to tell you what you can expect to happen in your lovelife? Would that make a welcome balance in science class?
It's good to be able to talk about these things. But the atheistic worldview is a threat to itself, because it is a threat to humanity itself and to peaceful coexistence. Here's why. If we can't see ourselves as sacred and sacramental body and soul unions, we begin, if even on a subtle level, not to be able to distinguish what makes us special - what makes us different from a chimp or a dog or a rock.
Incorrect. That is your opinion. If you are not an atheist then how can you know what an atheist actually thinks on issues other than the non-existence of God? I am an atheist and I wouldn't presume to know what any other atheist thinks about such issues. It would be nicer if you asked rather than told me what I think.
Hence my great dismay that people of the atheistic belief system perhaps don't see this - atheists are good people. Good enough to see how the end of the purely scientific, atheistic, materialistic world view eventually contributes to a lesser respect for human life.
Perhaps you should worry about your own religion before trying to evaluate others. What about the amount of lives ruined by widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests? Do they have respect for human life? In Ireland, it seems that almost every town and village had a perverted priest taking advantage of children. The worst part is that in many cases it was known to be happening by the church but was covered up. By the time it all came out many of the priests were already dead or close to it so there was no retribution for the abused and their families. Its sickening...
The point is that these aren't isolated incidents, they happend in the US too. It is the Catholic church itself that has caused this by enforcing the vow of abstinence which goes against human nature. If its not something inherently wrong with Catholicism, then please explain the high proportion of child abuse in the priesthood when compared to other sectors of employment...?
Not to mention that the pope has just come out and said that using condoms increases the chance of contracting AIDS!!!! He is actively encouraging people in Africa to exacerbate an already disaterous situation.
< /rant>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteYou are misinformed about the Catholic church. I don't blame you for that. You'll rarely hear any story involving Catholics that isn't somehow spun against us, even when hard evidence actually backs us up - which BTW is the case with the Pope and the Aids case.
I can't comment everything right now, but I'll be back to do so later.
But I will say that I'm not telling you what you think - you *might* think that your world view as an atheist contributes to the greater good - I'm here to tell you that if you examine it more carefully - it actually doesn't.
That's not me telling you what you personally think - those are my thoughts on where the tenets of atheism lead. There's a difference, no?
3graces,
ReplyDeleteYou are misinformed about the Catholic church. I don't blame you for that. You'll rarely hear any story involving Catholics that isn't somehow spun against us, even when hard evidence actually backs us up - which BTW is the case with the Pope and the Aids case.
No I am not misinformed. Wake up. It happened all over Ireland (I live in Dublin). This is not 'spin'. This is reality.
The pope on AIDS:
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
Please provide the 'hard evidence' that backs up this claim.
I like a post where the entire argument is "You're misinformed" and provides no details. The only proper response is "I am not."
ReplyDeleteI just don't see how such a post is an improvement on silence.
3graces,
ReplyDeleteBut I will say that I'm not telling you what you think - you *might* think that your world view as an atheist contributes to the greater good - I'm here to tell you that if you examine it more carefully - it actually doesn't.
That's not me telling you what you personally think - those are my thoughts on where the tenets of atheism lead. There's a difference, no?
Yes. Thank you for your thoughts.
My thoughts are that all religions, including Catholicism, are money-making scams that prey on the weak.
Check this out. The pope criticizes the pursuit of wealth. I can't decide what is dripping more, the irony or the gold draped all over his hypocritical body.
zilch asked:
ReplyDeleteStan: and what exactly do you have against dorks? Be specific.
Simple. I, as the self-appointed king of the dorks, am offended and outraged at being excluded from any dorkish discussion of which I am aware. That, and your feet stink.
3graces:
Welcome, and my apologies in advance for any foul treatment your Catholic views will earn you from our esteemed host... a similar apology is available for any similar abuse you receive at the hands of my fellow non-theists.
I tend to agree with virtually everything zilch has said thus far, and I echo much of the sentiment felt by rhiggs in his rant. I am here not to convert believers into unbelievers, but to engage in amusing and fascinating dialog regarding the ever-fascinating subject of personal belief -- especially positive belief sans evidence. This really isn't a hobby of mine -- it's something I do to wile away the time when my hobbies are unavailable due to weather, funds, or whatever other obstacle(s). That, and I enjoy pushing Dan's buttons.
As I understand it, Catholicism is merely a more open (in some respects), more ritualized, and more cloistered (in other respects) version of its successor, Protestant Christianity. It, as an institution, is guilty of so many heinous crimes against humanity, and against human dignity, that its continued existence is almost as baffling as the number of crimes. Surely, despite your natural wish to defend your chosen faith, you, too, will recognize that the Catholic Church is indeed guilty of many such crimes, yes?
Since I really don't have anything new to offer here, though, I'll leave it at that, and hope to encounter you in one of Dan's future dung heaps. I'm sure your third perspective will prove entertaining for all -- he's quite anti-Catholic, and I wonder how he'll react to this new threat.
--
Stan
Hi folks,
ReplyDeleteBack as promised.
I think Chris Mackey said "if you are not an atheist you can't know what I think" or something like that. I was an atheist. This helps me understand the atheist perspective, though I stop short of mind-reading.
I said that the evidence backs the Pope up on the condom flip flap.
Here's the link to an article by Dr. Green, senior researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health, agreeing with the pope - condom use is not the magic bullet that you've been told it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
Here's a link to Dr. Green's credentials: http://www.harvardaidsprp.org/faculty-staff/edward-c-green-bio.html
Also, a condom will not keep you from getting an STD. What's needed is a full body rubber suit - disease can be communicated through other types of activities...ahem. There simply is no "safe sex" medically or otherwise, outside the shelter of monogamous, faithful marriage or complete abstinence.
As far as foul treatment I may receive here - I endure it for the love of you, my brothers and sisters, and for Christ.
I know there are Protestants who hate Catholics. But as the ranks are closing in on the believing world, we cannot afford be a house divided any longer.
Meanwhile, I hear wailing and gnashing of teeth over the symbols and traditions of the Catholic evidenced in the Pope’s wardrobe. Please don’t ignore the fact that The Pope is the spiritual leader of a Church which has been at the forefront of aid to the poor all over the world for millennia.
If you’re willing to take aim at *one* "gold-draped" Pontiff - let's take aim at the gods and goddesses of the secular world. Maybe Brad Pitt is donating the contents of his massive walk in closet to the third-world home of Angie's latest adoptive children, but somehow I doubt it.
While I cannot vouch for the people responsible for dragging the good name of my Church through the mud, the non-Catholic world can go toe to toe with the crimes you list for the Church. You give me the Crusades - I give you Stalin’s Gulags. You give me priest sex abuse - I give you the findings of a seven-month investigation by Associated Press reporters which reveals that from 2001 to 2005, the teaching credentials of more than 2,500 public educators nationwide were revoked, denied, surrendered, or sanctioned following allegations of sexual misconduct. …
However, AP says that during its investigation, it found a "deeply
entrenched resistance" toward recognizing and fighting that sexual abuse -- from teachers and school administrators who wish to avoid lawsuits, to the halls of state capitals and Congress where lawmakers are hesitant to disparage an otherwise honorable and vital profession. The result, says Associated Press, is that very few abusers get caught -- and often are allowed to exit a public school district quietly, only to show up in another public school district. That dynamic, says the report, is so commonplace that it has its own nicknames -- "passing the trash" or the "mobile molester."
Sound familiar? Sound a bit like the sex abuse scandal of the Catholic Church? Hmmm.
Contrary to what you have heard before, this percentage is less than the number of abuse cases reported in the Catholic Church.
The point is, it's not the institution - it's the people. Bad people everywhere in every walk of life - listening to what they want instead of what God wants.
Insofar as every secular and religious institution is stained by the evil committed by its unscrupulous members and/or leadership - the persistent singling-out and public flogging of the Catholic church is a hate-filled and hypocritical act.
Whatever's going on in a given era - be it ritual human sacrifice or selling the last remaining acres of Los Angeles wetlands to Steven Spielberg so he can build his private horse ranch - if people truly took in the law of God written upon their hearts, they would never be able to participate in an atrocities or stand idly by and watch them unfold.
Now I'm off to attempt some semblance of a life on a Friday night.
Kazim - I guess some religions disprove themselves every decade. Usually the ones that try to be "with it" and remain "relevant."
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church couldn't care less about being "with it." We care more about being True, regardless of what the fashion of the day dictates.
The Catholic Church has been preaching Christ Crucified, Died and Risen again for 2000+ yrs. Not much change there. Some dissent in the early church as now, but we've been holding firm to what we believe since A.D. was A.D. It's all there, in great detail, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
As far as atheists are concerned on the matter, you can't disprove something that never existed, right, i.e. God.
3graces:
ReplyDeleteYou missed something. Rhiggs stated that the pope criticizes the pursuit of wealth and suggests that he still engages in it. So, he is basicly calling the pope a hypocrite. Unless Mr. Pitt likewise criticizes the pursuit of wealth, it doesn't really matter what his charitable contributions are or are not (for this discussion.) The question is that of hypocrisy.
Thanks, Pvblivs.
ReplyDeleteI only missed one thing? Must be doing pretty good.
I see the comparison between Brangelina and Pope Benedict is not exactly parallel for these purposes in that the Pope has stated that the pursuit of wealth is not such a good thing.
If I wanted to stagger through mind-numbing interviews with Brangelina, I would find pronouncements emphasizing care for the poor and downtrodden. The basic gestalt of Hollywood is liberal secularist and progressive - all of which purport to keep care for the poor and underserved front and center. I think that's pretty obvious on the face of it.
I don't believe it's hypocritical for the Pope to wear his traditional garments. The world leader of a faith shared by billions to follow tradition handed down over eons is wearing traditonal garb. Even if some do feel that way, just because they think a Christian leader is a hypocrite does not make all of Christianity invalid. If that were the case, then every denomination and nation, should fall because they’ve all had hypocritical leaders.
If the church were to wait for a perfect leader, we'd be waiting until the return of Christ.
OK.
Well, I guess I've joined the ranks of dork-dom, blogging on a Friday night.
3graces,
ReplyDeleteI said that the evidence backs the Pope up on the condom flip flap.
Here's the link to an article by Dr. Green, senior researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health, agreeing with the pope - condom use is not the magic bullet that you've been told it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
Eh, no.....
The pope said:
"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."
The pope implied that condom use increases the risk of HIV transmission. The article you linked quite clearly explains that the major problem in Africa is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.
So the condoms work but they are not being used properly. Also, a high percentage of people have multiple partners:
And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.
So the problem is with sexual education in these countries, not with the efficacy of condoms. It also isn't a direct result of the distribution of condoms. Otherwise it wouldn't matter what country you looked at, AIDS would be increasing proportionally to condom distribution and use. As the article clearly states, the opposite is happening in Thailand and Cambodia:
Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them).
The article also states that some studies have concluded that condom use in some areas didn't decrease the spread of AIDS (most likely due to misuse), but nowhere do they state that condom use actually increases HIV transmission, which is what the pope implied..."On the contrary, it increases the problem."
So I'm afraid this is not hard evidence to back up the pope's claim....
This is evidence of a lack of sexual education in some parts of Africa. The condoms are being distributed, but they aren't always being used...
So I'm afraid this is not hard evidence to back up the pope's claim....
ReplyDelete...which is a waste of time.
So what? The pope is wrong on the relationship between condom distribution and the spread of HIV, but the spread of HIV is merely a cop-out talking point for the pope, to gloss over the fact that his objection to the use of condoms has nothing to do with the spread of HIV or STDs. His objection rests solely on the use of condoms, or any other device, as a prophylactic. To cite studies concerning the use of condoms with respect to the spread of HIV/STDs, is to deliberately obfuscate.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church is quite adept at obfuscation -- try as I might, I could not find the official Catholic position on condom use anywhere on the internet (and I checked everywhere), so assuming the Catholic church really does ban the use of condoms for some biblical reason or another, it has nothing to do with HIV, but only with the preservation of precious dogma.
Anyway, as to 3grace's specific points...
Please don’t ignore the fact that The Pope is the spiritual leader of a Church which has been at the forefront of aid to the poor all over the world for millennia.
"Millennia"? That would be two, at most. Try "centuries" if you want to give an impression of establishment. Of course, in order to make such a statement, you should also be required to back it up with citation -- no, I'm not being nit-picky; we all know about "Mother" Teresa, and other such philanthropy. I'm rather talking again about the "millennia" claim. For much of the Catholic church's history, little effort was made to affect the poor, aside from exploiting them to pay for Rome's many wondrous architectural features. Indeed, despite its claims of philanthropy, its deeds have been something else entirely.
Do as I say, not as I do?
If you’re willing to take aim at *one* "gold-draped" Pontiff - let's take aim at the gods and goddesses of the secular world. Maybe Brad Pitt is donating the contents of his massive walk in closet to the third-world home of Angie's latest adoptive children, but somehow I doubt it.
Right. That's really close to an accurate analogy. While various partially clothed, semi-toothed, trailer-dwelling Americans anxiously await every utterance of Brad Pitt and/or Angelina Jolie, they hardly command the power wielded by the pope. However large a fortune Brangelina have amassed, it pales in comparison to the uncounted wealth of the Catholic church. If fifty cents of every dollar "earned" by the Catholic church were put directly into philanthropy projects, I highly doubt world hunger and/or poverty in general would be an issue. If the pope would decree that half of the gold trim, gilding, and trinkets which so ostentatiously adorn the Vatican, should be melted down and sold, the proceeds of which should directly support the poor and/or hungry, again I suspect one or neither to be much of a problem for a considerable period of time ("millennia"?).
Instead, though, they insist on pointy hats and dresses lined with gold trim.
Nobody cares what they wear, nobody cares how ridiculous they look -- we merely point out the blatant hypocrisy of the pinnacle of the world's most wealthy institution proclaiming that wealth is not something after which one should seek. I suppose, in his defense, the pope didn't "seek" this vast wealth; he was "called" to it by his imaginary friend...
While I cannot vouch for the people responsible for dragging the good name of my Church through the mud, the non-Catholic world can go toe to toe with the crimes you list for the Church.
Good for you? Does that mean that for every suicide bombing performed by an Iraqi or Afghani insurgent, another altar-boy gets touched "down there"?
Here's a clue: We denounce those crimes, too. The difference is that the crimes of the Catholic church were (are?) promulgated by the church, not by some mere jerk with power. What is the Catholic policy on the position of the earth in space? How many people died or were excommunicated as a result of this stance, before it was 'reevaluated'? What is the Catholic policy on demonic possession and/or witchcraft? How many people have died and/or been tortured based on these policies?
Crusades, oppression, bass-ackwards though/policies -- your church has persecuted a great many otherwise innocent persons, and in every case it has done so on the basis of some presumed biblical "authority," or from god's decree (via the pope). If the church has been wrong in the past, how can you know it is not wrong now?
The point is, it's not the institution - it's the people.
And at what point does the institution begin to take the blame for the practices of its adherents? Are you now prepared to claim that Nazi fascism is not to blame for the Holocaust, but the individual Germans were? Sure, that's intuitively true, but don't we blame Nazi fascism for something in all this? Sure, the pedophile priests are individually blameworthy, as are the Catholics of every station who participated in the Crusades, or who forced through threat of torture the conversion of indigenous peoples, or who tortured and/or murdered suspected witches, or who... fill in any of the multitude of crimes committed by Catholics with papal endorsement...
At what point do we say, "Wow! If these people weren't Catholic, they probably wouldn't have behaved this way..."? At what point do we blame the institution?
Insofar as every secular and religious institution is stained by the evil committed by its unscrupulous members and/or leadership - the persistent singling-out and public flogging of the Catholic church is a hate-filled and hypocritical act.
But you said it yourself: "The Pope is the spiritual leader of a Church which has been at the forefront of [atrocities as well as benevolence] all over the world for millennia."
If the Jehovah's Witnesses had been around for more than a hundred and thirty years (given a liberal view of its establishment), we'd bemoan their evils, too... Give them enough time, and I'm sure they, too, can produce such atrocities as the Catholic church has produced. Mormonism, likewise, has only been around for about two hundred years, and even with the extra seventy years, it hasn't had time to make the negative impression Catholicism has...
No, don't worry. We denounce the abhorrent policies of other religions, too. If you're going to throw stones at the beehive, though, don't be surprised when the bees take notice.
Really, though, this isn't the entertainment for which I had paid; I want to see the Catholic and Prod square off.
--
Stan
Dan you spend a large portion of the "debunking atheism" what ever that means, while showing your lack of understanding of atheism, religion, logic and evolution.
ReplyDeleteMost concerning is that after you are statisfied with your debunking. you fail to give good reason as to why your god is the particular diety to exist.
Thomas
ReplyDeleteJust a couple of questions before I try to answer your challenge. I hope you don't mind an Agnostic accepting your challenge. You may find relief from Atheists tautological and formulaic evolutionary dogma: Some variation of It evolved because it was the fittest. One wonders what they might argue if you said Christianity "has selective fitness, because it enables life forms to better model their world, which gives them better chances to survive and reproduce." However, I do not share atheists seeming fear of systematic thought.
What do you mean by immaterial thought? Is there material thought?
When you ask for an account are you asking for a historic model of somekind?
Mike,
ReplyDelete>>What do you mean by immaterial thought? Is there material thought?
Thought is immaterial.
You cannot fill a cup of thought.
You cannot fill a glass of thought.
That is the point being made.
"Are these laws material or immaterial?...You would have to say “yes” to this question. Saying “no” would be self-defeating."
"Now, if laws of logic are absolute, immaterial, cannot be empirically tested, and absolute truth does exist, how is that possible in an atheistic system? You must have an atheistic answer; otherwise you should stop referring to yourself as an atheist."
>>When you ask for an account are you asking for a historic model of somekind?
How do you explain it? How do you justify the thought? What are the origins? How can an Atheist account for things that are transcendental?
Just so you know, you can't "debunk" a group of people; you can only debunk a concept.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin,
ReplyDeleteI agree...I think. Are you alluding to something though?
Keep in mind its debunking "Atheists" as individuals, not "Atheism" as an entire religion.
That being said, you can certainly debunk individuals, groups that agree on concepts, and philosophical positions.
As an example, that bear attack certainly debunked the boy scouts' view that "camping is safe". It debunks the group of people that hold that viewpoint of "camping is safe".
We are doing just that. I agree its a pompous sounding title, but that is merely a marketing tool to draw them in. After all, people want to correct a mistake made. That itself is evidenced by the fact it even worked on you. :7)
Blessings