ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

The illogic of atheism

Miles Mathis explains why he finds atheism to be illogical:
A modern skeptic is like an agnostic, and he or she is likely to lean to a “no” answer every time. Are there gods? Probably not. Are there unicorns? Probably not. Is there a Bigfoot? Probably not. And so on. I resist this “skeptic” tag because leaning toward a “no” answer is a prejudice itself. It is unscientific. Beyond that, the so-called skeptic societies are stiff with atheists and agnostics and cynics and other faux-scientists, and I prefer to remain as far away from all that as possible.

Of course, with the existence of Bigfoot and unicorns and so on we do have a great deal of information. We have made searches. The Earth is a limited environment and we have populated it widely and heavily and long. Even so, the mountain gorilla was not discovered until 1902, and huge populations of lowland gorillas were only recently discovered in the Congo (this very decade). Which is to say that we may lean a bit to a “no” answer for existence of larger beings in smaller areas we have scoured quite thoroughly, but even then we may be wrong.

But in looking for proof of gods, our search is pathetically limited. By definition, a god is a being whose powers are far greater than ours, who we cannot comprehend, and whose form we cannot predict. This would make our failure to locate a god quite understandable. A very large or small god would be above or below our notice, and a distant god would also evade our sensors. Not to mention we only have five senses. If we are manipulated by gods, as the hypothesis goes, then it would be quite easy for them to deny us the eyes to see them. Only a god of near-human size in the near environs would be possible to detect.

Again, this does not mean I believe in gods, any more than I believe in aliens or unicorns. I only point out that, as a matter of logic and science, a hypothesis that has not been proved is not the same as a hypothesis that has been disproved. I agree with the atheists and agnostics that the existence of gods has not been proved, but I do not agree that the existence of gods has been disproved. It would require a much more thorough search of the universe than has so far been completed to even begin to lean. As it is, our data is near-zero.

For this reason, I find atheists to be just as sanctimonious, illogical, and tiresome as the deists and theists, if not moreso. Because the atheists are often more highly educated and often better able to argue (in limited ways), they use this education and argument to prop themselves up in the ugliest ways. They blow apart the beliefs of religious people and imagine this solidifies their own beliefs in some way. But it never does. People of faith are actually more consistent in their views, since they never claim to believe in science anyway. They are not immediately hypocritical, at least, since it is possible for them create a closed system of illogic that circles back in a self-affirming way. The search for truth is no part of their system, so it is no failure when they find none. But atheists cannot say the same. They base their system on science, so that the very first instant they fail to act scientifically, they are back to zero. Yes, it is the same zero as the theists' zero, but the theists aren't measuring and the atheists are. A theist at zero is just a theist, and no harm done. But an atheist at zero has had a fall, and must be damaged.
I would go farther, of course, as I observe most atheists to be not only illogical, but irrational. And thank God for that! It's the rational atheists who are by far the most problematic.

Labels: ,

222 Comments:

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»
Blogger FUBARwest July 17, 2019 1:08 PM  

The existence of a god is so logically plain that atheists have to hold irrational positions to stay in a materialistic world view. Which somehow they cannot see. Chalk it up to the veil not being lifted from their eyes. Or maybe autism.

Blogger Michael S. July 17, 2019 1:15 PM  

Miles Mathis is no different than the atheists. He is NOT agnostic in that he is CERTAIN that there is not enough evidence to arrive at certainty as to the Existence of God. Bertrand Russell made the same argument.
Furthermore, the consequences of Mr. Mathis' "agnosticism" is the same as Atheism. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot proved that Atheism, Agnosticism can make one very successful. HSMP became the most powerful people in human history and three out of four lived out their natural lives.
Agnosticism is just as evil and irrational as Atheism.
God bless, Michael

P.S. One cannot "prove" by the scientific method that slavery, rape, murder, pedophilia, lying etc. is right or wrong. In fact, if one accepts Atheism/agnosticism AND Evolution, then HSMP's behavior was justified by survival of the fittest applied to human behavior which resulted in survival of the most ruthless. After all, it is "science". Scientific Socialism was the term that was used to justify the Gulags.

Blogger Critias July 17, 2019 1:15 PM  

Thinking back to when I was a ardent atheist, one of the biggest factors in building up that perspective is pride.

There is so much media of all sorts out there that inflate that pride and you just can't see the forest for the trees.

Blogger NP_see July 17, 2019 1:17 PM  

" The search for truth is no part of their system, so it is no failure when they find none." How does he come to that conclusion?

Blogger Nation-Deprived July 17, 2019 1:21 PM  

I’ve always suspected atheism was less rooted in logic and more rooted in God-hate.

Always appreciated Vox’s take on their little line “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, which he translated to “I’m going to deny this until you absolutely corner me.”

Blogger Eduardo July 17, 2019 1:24 PM  

That little sleight of hand where Science is Materialism which is whatever the Athey thinks is Science™

Brilliant...

Blogger Gregory the Great July 17, 2019 1:25 PM  

certainly not by searching for the truth.

Blogger Edward Isaacs July 17, 2019 1:26 PM  

This Miles guy is a cringelord. He may know something about atheists but he doesn't know a thing about theists. Tried to muck through the article but there's a "Costanza face"-worthy gaffe nearly every other sentence.

Blogger Whitecloak July 17, 2019 1:32 PM  

There is far more evidence for God than there is for aliens, really. The fruits of spirituality are manifest in the rise and fall of civilizations, supernatural evil surely exists, our elite practice occultism practically in the open now.

What evidence for space aliens? Can't see any really.

Blogger binks webelf July 17, 2019 1:35 PM  

Some self-satisfied agnostics and atheists caricature "The Truth" about what Christians are like and what they "really believe" in a way I don't recognize whatsoever. A little attention to reality is always helpful... including the reality of motivations for and against belief in God, and finding out what Christians & church & Christian faith & life is ACTUALLY like.

Christian philosopher J. Budziszewski in "What We Can't Not Know: A Guide" admits that as a college atheist, his primary motivation was self-will, and saying to God, as it were, "You're Not The Boss Of Me'.

He later realized that by throwing out God, he was throwing out reason, and a transcendent source of morality, and many other good things which were part of Western Christianity.

Blogger Lovekraft July 17, 2019 1:45 PM  

A healthy balance is needed. Being neck deep in Scripture would lead to exclusion (at least among the general population) of necessary data. However, where the faithful are among their own kind and sharing a common purpose and hierarchy, their works can be abundant and wondrous.

Blogger pyrrhus July 17, 2019 1:52 PM  

The only way that atheists and agnostics can maintain their poses is to completely screen out contrary evidence...For example, there is tons of solid evidence for reincarnation that simply cannot be explained away...so it is ignored, and treated as poison in Academia...Of course, it is impossible to conceive of reincarnation without a higher power...
Similarly with alien craft or, more rarely alien species...Hundreds of thousands of reports by trained observers, military and civilian, and in official reports speak of craft that can do completely impossible maneuvers, at incredible speeds--and all these reports by ordinary people who have nothing to gain, and often much to lose, by the reports...So a tremendous preponderance of strong evidence favors the existence of aliens and alien craft on Earth...This is dealt with by mocking and punishing the observers and the controlled media refusing to carry the story.

Blogger basementhomebrewer July 17, 2019 1:55 PM  

I read this as simply trying to create a new camp that considers itself superior to both "theists" and Atheists. His assertion that theists "aren't looking for the truth" is flawed and more based off a caricature of a religious person rather than based on actual religious people.

Blogger SirHamster July 17, 2019 2:06 PM  

RUBBLE BOUNCED

Blogger Daniel July 17, 2019 2:08 PM  

Correspondence Theory of Truth
Coherence Theory of Truth
Consensus Theory of Truth

Pick one, and choose wisely.

Blogger Rick July 17, 2019 2:25 PM  

They think it’s all peaches and cream being a believer? It’s worse, because you know you are a sinner.
I was a lucky one however. The intellectual satisfaction came after the sign. The sign wasn’t the important part, but the fruit it produced.
I have respect for genuine agnostics. The ones I’ve know yearned for a sign, but yet had respect for those who had been given them. They tread lightly on the subject.

Blogger ErotemeObelus July 17, 2019 2:30 PM  

I don't like thinking about what atheists or agnostics believe or fail to believe. But we are correct in saying that while it is unlikely that Bigfoot exists, there is a chance that we could be wrong.

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 2:31 PM  

"I resist this 'skeptic' tag because leaning toward a 'no' answer is a prejudice itself. It is unscientific."

Skepticism is quite literally the opposite of prejudice. And as regards science, it's neither here nor there. Because there is no way to scientifically test matters of metaphysics and theology.

Skepticism is not simply about doubt. Doubt as to the veracity of some assertion of doubt as to the possibility of knowledge concerning certain subjects. Or any knowledge at all. Etymologically, skepticism is about inquiry and reflection. Not to assert something is the case, but to withhold conclusion until investigation has been carried out. Which in some cases, where knowledge is difficult or impossible to come by, means the inquiry is perpetual.

Of course, delaying judgement on this manner, or merely appearing to, may be motivated by prejudice. Either the prejudice of leaning one way or having already made up your mind and being cagey about it. Especially considering the wide range of conclusions God-skeptics can reach on subjects that don't have to do with God.

However, I consider myself skeptical on a great number of matters. And claiming knowledge where I should have doubt is a persistent problem. Because there's so much to be wrong about. Some people, just some, take particular care on matters of great importance. And what is more important than God?

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 2:37 PM  

@16- The caricature of believers as scared children who need comforting stories to protect them against things that go bump in the night sits side-by-side with nightmares about growing up under the iron hand of discipline and guilt and shame that comes with religion. So they know it's not all upside. But they forget when they want to make a point about certainty versus uncertainty.

Blogger dienw July 17, 2019 2:51 PM  

Wait. Wasn't there some 17th century guy named Descartes who jumped into an stove and after a while declared, "I think; therefore, I am?" and from there went on to "prove" God exists? If I recall from books that he was most celebrated by his peers when he proved to his peers that God exists.

My, how the rationalists have fallen!

Blogger Unknown July 17, 2019 3:08 PM  

"They blow apart the beliefs of religious people and imagine this solidifies their own beliefs in some way. But it never does."

I've always called such people anti-theists. True atheists are still open to the possibility of a god. Anti-theists actively deny there is even the possibility of one, and never fail to tell you so when given the opportunity.
-Unknownsailor-

Blogger Robert Browning July 17, 2019 3:17 PM  

There are no atheists. If you reject Christ and his teachings you are a Jew.

Blogger Alexamenos July 17, 2019 3:41 PM  

"There is far more evidence for God than there is for aliens, really."


Let's not go there again.

Blogger Solon July 17, 2019 3:42 PM  

"theists aren't looking for the truth"

Oh, right, so in his opinion, the thousands of years of theological debate between, not just Christianity and other religions, but between the many different sects of Christianity, that was all just mental masturbation and didn't amount to anything, since none of those theists were looking for "the truth." Got it.

Get bent, dude. Atheists not only aren't searching for the truth, they're intentionally walking in the opposite direction, but at least they're walking. Agnostics don't want people to think they're foolish for choosing wrongly, so they refuse to choose at all. Cowards. I should know, I used to call myself an agnostic.

Blogger C.B. Robertson July 17, 2019 3:45 PM  

Where gods are concerned, skepticism isn't just an impulsive reaction to any claim. It's an epistemological view, which rejects the idea that entities can simply be defined into existence (e.g., "by definition, God is the most perfect possible being, and existence is a quality of perfection, therefore God exists"). One might be skeptical of Bigfoot because of the lack of evidence, but the descriptions of God's nature are not evidence. I could describe a creature who, by it's nature, is impossible to observe... some kind of stealth-chameleon maybe. Invisible, odorless, and in fact, has no mass. Skepticism looks at this assertion and says "that's very interesting but I don't care."

I myself am not an atheist, but this anti-skepticism argument is retarded. Christian theology is interesting and a little compelling because it DOES take the skeptic's burden seriously, and doesn't just make assertions that dance around any responsibility for justification, but (attempts to) testify to the veracity of the claims it makes.

Blogger OGRE July 17, 2019 4:01 PM  

@25 C.B. Robertson

All testing, all confirmation and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all our arguments; no it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much the point of departure, as the element in which our arguments have their life...

If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.

- Wittgentstein, On Certainty

Blogger CM July 17, 2019 4:03 PM  

They are not immediately hypocritical, at least, since it is possible for them create a closed system of illogic that circles back in a self-affirming way.

When atheists make statements like this, as if they are masters of logic, I wonder if they have even the most basic education in philosophy.

Probably not.

Blogger The Cooler July 17, 2019 4:10 PM  

People of faith [...] never claim to believe in science anyway.

...

...

WAT

Blogger Brett baker July 17, 2019 4:11 PM  

Might not want to say that around sincere Aryan pagans.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 4:45 PM  

God is provable. Something came from nothing and every single something has order and purpose and the rules are perfectly consistent and eternally reproducible.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 4:48 PM  

The human body has trillions of orderly actions that occur every nano-second in perfect order an synergy with every other action occurring and go occur in the future. Only a fool cannot understand intelligence is the reason for this being reality.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 4:51 PM  

One cell has trillions of orderly actions that occur every second with each system dependent upon all others. One human cell is far more complicated than all vehicle ever manufactured. This didn't appear out of lightning striking a pool of primordial clay.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 4:52 PM  

People of faith all believe in science Science is the craft of discovering God's design

Blogger Alen July 17, 2019 4:52 PM  

To me the strangest thing about these atheists is that they go around proclaiming to everybody, or even boasting, about not having faith, since that is what atheism basically is, lack of faith.
And they’re somehow unaware that that is what they’re doing.
It’s like going around and telling everyone around you: "Hey look, I don’t have a car!" or "look everybody, I don’t have a house!" How is boasting about something you don’t have supposed to convince anyone of anything? It’s beyond ridiculous. And to think that otherwise rational, educated people do this makes it all even dumber.

Blogger Franz Lyonheart July 17, 2019 5:16 PM  

I agree with the atheists and agnostics that the existence of gods has not been proved.


ελοι ελοι λαμα σαβαχθανι

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

This is why I came back from borderline Nihilistic Atheism to Christianity.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 5:18 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 5:21 PM  

"I see the car parked in the garage of the three story mansion with kids swimming in the.pool. Prove to me someone had a hand in building that." - Atheist

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 5:24 PM  

"The search for truth is no part of their system, so it is no failure when they find none. But atheists cannot say the same."

I'd have to argue that this is only true in some cases with faith, while it must be true in all cases involving science, since contrary to his faith, science has never been designed to determine truth in the first place. Science is designed and fit for one purpose, and that purpose is to levy influence for its practitioners.

Let us be clear though. Someone professing as being strictly scientific cannot use the words "is" or "should" without being a liar. Science of itself can only "prove" or "disprove" anything to an arbitrarily defined standard, or a standard nested in layers of other arbitrary standards.

It must first be taken on faith that there is truth, because if there is not truth then there can be no designs, and if there are no designs there can be no designations and therefore no discernible things. Faith is therefore necessarily mentally superset to all things, such as the designed system of science.

A clarification of the question of whether there are gods -- with respect to hypothetical gods, how can one say how close or how far away they lie in terms even of superiority to man? Is not a man who controls another man a god over him? If not, why not? How much greater ability is required to be determined as a god by what is not a god? Can more be needed for the designation of godhood than the ability to claim to be a god over what cannot resist?

"Pick one, and choose wisely."

Coherence. "Apart from which nothing was made which has been made."

Blogger C.B. Robertson July 17, 2019 5:26 PM  

@26 OGRE

I already said that "skepticism" isn't "doubting everything." That's a stupid language game and a straw-man. "Where gods are concerned, skepticism isn't just an impulsive reaction to any claim. It's an epistemological view, which rejects the idea that entities can simply be defined into existence."

There certainly are skeptics out there who DO doubt everything, but I made clear that wasn't what I was talking about.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 5:26 PM  

I certainly cannot understand that I see anything unless I first believe that I can see.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 5:29 PM  

Atheist's and The Squad have common purpose "to tear down Western Christian culture". It has nothing to do with their belief but is all about jealousy, envy and hate.

They both serve the same God of this world.

Blogger xevious2030 July 17, 2019 5:32 PM  

“but the descriptions of […]'s nature are not evidence”

Depends on the descriptions, and the acceptance. Along with the difference between evidence and proof.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 5:36 PM  

"To me the strangest thing about these atheists is that they go around proclaiming to everybody, or even boasting, about not having faith, since that is what atheism basically is, lack of faith."

Oh, it's considerably more blind than even that. No, an atheist must have faith that there is nothing to have faith in.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 5:44 PM  

The atheist has said in his heart "I am God and there is no other".

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 5:52 PM  

And one day the atheist will know there is God...

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 5:52 PM  

Eventually the whole world will be atheist. Not saying this is good or bad, just that it is inevitable, unavoidable. The last remaining religion, I think, will be Buddhism - because Buddhism provides a spiritual path without the necessity of believing in gods.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 5:54 PM  

Christopher Hitchens, Darwin and Marx all know there us a God, and he has a Son and his name is Jesus.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 5:57 PM  

"Eventually the whole world will be atheist. Not saying this is good or bad, just that it is inevitable, unavoidable."

How quaint. You realize that that is precisely what Nietzsche meant when he said that God was dead, right? Good job repeating the history you failed to know. The concept of God is no more dead than God himself.

Blogger Balam July 17, 2019 6:00 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"To me the strangest thing about these atheists is that they go around proclaiming to everybody, or even boasting, about not having faith, since that is what atheism basically is, lack of faith."

Oh, it's considerably more blind than even that. No, an atheist must have faith that there is nothing to have faith in.


To jump off even further from @Alen, it is not enough to say that they boast about lack of faith. It is even too little to say that they 'have faith there is nothing to have faith in'. They know they are created beings and that men come from somewhere - even in the most micro level we come from our parents. Man is a being created to worship and hold faith in things, as long as they can't see their first ancestor they are going to have faith in some kind of first origin.

Their faith is in a god/origin/creator who is dumb, unloving, has no human qualities whatsoever so can be truly called a monster in the sense that it is literally in-human. Natural selection, primordial soup's conclusion. There can be no morality or sense of right with their blind monster god, and their faith is that we have as little to do with the origin/creator as shed hairs or dandruff do with wandering dog. They take faith in their own worthlessness, the belief that they -are- without value, which goes a long way to explaining coherence with their generally deconstructionist philosophies. Again, the faith is in a god which has defined them as worthless and has no human face.

I am always surprised that atheists try logic at all and never consider the natural conclusion of their beliefs which is, "why do you have faith that anything leads to or means anything?". Logic can't function without the faith that truth is real and that things lead to other things. John C. Wright brought this up and called it, 'sawing off the branch you are sitting on'.

Ken Younos wrote:Eventually the whole world will be atheist. Not saying this is good or bad, just that it is inevitable, unavoidable. The last remaining religion, I think, will be Buddhism - because Buddhism provides a spiritual path without the necessity of believing in gods.

Why? Even demographic trends give argument that cannibal vodooism will be the last religion and self-professed atheists are declining at a rapid pace. What is your reasoning?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 6:00 PM  

Here is some truth for you, Younos. Everything that does not admit God will necessarily die. Rather than the knowledge of God dying, those who lack that knowledge are doomed to die.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:02 PM  

To the atheist he is the pinnacle of all that is. To the Christian his own finest works are but filthy rags and he deserves hell...

Hubris vs humility

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 6:07 PM  

@48: God is dead in Western Europe, but not in Eastern Europe, or in the USA, or in Latin America or in the Middle East, or in Africa. Not yet, anyway. Belief in God is still alive and well in most parts of the world. Nietzsche's observations were limited to Europe.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:10 PM  

And all the tech CEO's will download their Id and live forever... let us all know how that works out Suckerburg...

Blogger Meng Greenleaf July 17, 2019 6:11 PM  

Data suggests that religiosity is an inherent aspect of a healthy brain and develops normally.

Left-handedness, autoimmune disease, pedophilia, gender dysphoria and atheism show correlation with each other through abnormal brain development. This is probably due to genetics (an aspect of our ongoing dysgenics) and/or environmental factors. It shows the important of culture IMO. Though, in the state we are now, perhaps the wrath of god is the only solution?

I believe I was born with a natural inclination towards religiosity. Like a lot of other mid-wits (and higher), I was born 6 weeks premature and expected to be mentally retarded. Like ~ <10% of such instances, my developing brain reacted to this insult by some known compensation mechanisms that tried to repair the damage resulting in my IQ being slightly over 2SD.

My religiosity was possibly stolen from me by Boomer father who convinced me and scared me (age 12) that he was going to go to hell and we should "party now man" because we weren't seeing one another in the next life - forever. I clearly recall the ride back to my mother's trailer park in his cherry red convertible stingray. Him with his Jake Daniels, me with my thoughts.

Anyway, that's one of the reasons why I am curious about Universals. While I could define myself as agnostic-atheist, and do if someone bothers me about my belief, I also know I'm culturally Christian. Not to blab on about myself, and why the introduction, I'd say this: I just live my life assuming there is a God. I treat my thoughts in a way that would presume heaven, hell, intervention, higher purpose, meaning, etc... Slowly, I think, (like physical therapy) neural plasticity can be used to repair this area of the brain. I feel like I'm emotionally regaining a sense of belief.

Lastly, and perhaps ironically, (as much as Owen poo-poos Buddhist for comedic effect) it was a Buddhist Priest in Japan that mentally slapped some sense into me. I've said this story before, but in summary: In the main area of the family Temple, following prayers, I asked some questions and then said matter-of-factly: I don't believe any of this is true in the least. It was a petulant act. Like a snarky jealous neighbor putting down your lawn. He smiled warmly, leaned closely a whispered: You're probably right.

I felt a wave of shame.

It was as if I were the captain of a ship sailing across the oceans, smashing through the waves, sun at my back - only to realize that this wasn't true at all. I was a delirious sailor rubbing awake my eyes, alone on a ship with no sail, floundering in a harsh-mean ocean.

So, I began to change my way of thinking.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:14 PM  

Perpetual hell for Suckerburg:

His Id copied and made into a video game where he runs a hide and when you catch him you torture him and he can never die. Sounds like hell.

It would sell millions.

Blogger Ingot9455 July 17, 2019 6:14 PM  

One thing I like to remember in such discussions is that at one time, physicists and so forth believed in the 'Steady State' theory of the universe. That the universe was always here and always would be and so you could acceptably theorize that there was no beginning and no end and no need for God to have created it.

While the idea of the universe beginning at a single point-ish started in 1927 and followed from relativity, it wasn't until 1964 when cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered and the evidence for a Big Bang type event became overwhelming, leading to a critical shift. I learned 'of' the Steady State theory in high school, as an example of what came before.

Since then, more and more evidence has pointed towards a Big Bang type event, which leads to a far and away more Biblical interpretation than any other.

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 6:17 PM  

@46- Upon what could this prediction possibly be based? I dunno about God in particular, but at least 80-90% of the world adheres to faith in some supernatural beings or system. It's a very common thing amongst humans. No reason to believe it will disappear.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:18 PM  

Big Bang: There was nothing and in an instant there was a universe.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth

Blogger Bobiojimbo July 17, 2019 6:27 PM  

"Finally, they should recognize that atheism is a belief just as firmly planted in irrationality, in ego and desire, as theism. Atheism has no proof and no possible proof. It is unscientific. Like all human beliefs, it is a hunch based on a tissue, a guess based on a smear, a conjecture based on a passing mist."

Interesting. Miles came to the same conclusion as Vox.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 6:30 PM  

@56: I agree that many people naturally feel a need for a spiritual dimension to their lives. This is why I predict that Buddhism will remain - and not only because Buddhism offers spirituality, but also as a social counter/alternative to materialism. Science and capitalism are making the world more and more materialistic.

As for those religions which based on a belief in sky people with super powers, who demand worship from mortals or they will send a tsunami, cause an earthquake, etc. - I think, eventually, the way people think will become shaped - by science, by technology, by rising standard of life - so that they can recognize such beliefs as patently imaginary and belonging to mythology. We're not there yet, though. And unless places like Latin America and Africa find a way to increase overall IQ, which would in turn help them to economically develop and to raise their own standard of life, they will continue to be religious places for a long time to come.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:36 PM  

It's not that Younos is wrong. He just has beliefs that aren't right.

Blogger The Observer July 17, 2019 6:37 PM  

They predictably fall into three categories:

1) Fuck you Dad, you aren't the boss of me!
2) If God doesn't exist, I can be as degenerate as I want and not be judged.
3) Look at me, I am so smart for not believing in a Magic Sky Daddy! Didn't you know I am smart?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 6:37 PM  

"God is dead in Western Europe"

A lie. I would settle for "only mostly dead".

It's not entirely gone.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 6:41 PM  

"As for those religions which based on a belief in sky people with super powers, who demand worship from mortals or they will send a tsunami, cause an earthquake, etc. - I think, eventually, the way people think will become shaped - by science, by technology, by rising standard of life - so that they can recognize such beliefs as patently imaginary and belonging to mythology."

This is why you're going to die. You're firmly convinced that you know everything about things you have chosen to learn nothing about.

Blogger Alexamenos July 17, 2019 6:42 PM  

"God is dead in Western Europe"

I'm pretty sure Allah would disagree

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 6:42 PM  

"He turns his eyes away from what he fears, saying that it does not exist".

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:45 PM  

Allah is not God. Allah is Lucifer.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len July 17, 2019 6:51 PM  

The search for truth is no part of their system, so it is no failure when they find none.

He was doing pretty well until this line, letting slip that he still holds SCIENCE! as the only path to "truth".


@62 - I would vote for number 2 as the most common and powerful motivation. They really, really, really, really, really hate the idea of someone judging them, far more than most. I think we know what that says about their place in the SSH.

This is why I predict that Buddhism will remain

Do you mean half-arsed Westernized Buddhism, which is just a way to play at being "spiritual" while, once again, avoiding judgment?

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 6:52 PM  

@58: The universe could be the result of intelligent design, but if this is the case, the designer was not a god. If we find boot prints in the living room on Christmas morning, unless we are little kids we aren't going to conclude that those boot prints came from Santa Claus. We'd look for a more realistic explanation. Santa Claus is patently imaginary, and therefore we rightly and responsibly exclude it from any consideration.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 6:53 PM  

"Any function, believed to be understood, was called science.

From whence it comes, to which it shall return?

Though it was not so in the beginning, it became from the falsification of nature as from nothing, as nothing, by nothing, unto nothing. So too, it is gone. Nothing became its nature."

To make this perfectly plain, Younos, what you're saying can with complete accuracy be translated as "the magic in which I believe will dispel the understanding upon which it is itself necessarily based". I would answer that in you, it already has.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 6:54 PM  

Quran "allah deceived and allah is the best deceiver"

Blogger Alexamenos July 17, 2019 6:55 PM  

"Allah is not God. Allah is Lucifer."

Im going to go out on a limb and guess that Allah would disagree with that as well.

My point was more that 'god is dead' presupposes that western european peoples are fixed population group and not susceptible to being demographically replaced.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 6:55 PM  

"Santa Claus is patently imaginary, and therefore we rightly and responsibly exclude it from any consideration."

Your argument is literally "there is no God because I have presumed he is imaginary". Idiotic.

To go at it from the other angle, what measure is a god?

Blogger Ingot9455 July 17, 2019 6:57 PM  

"If this is the case, the designer is not a God."

Almost political-level goalpost shifting there. What would you call such a designer if not God? Any other name would just be a synonym.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:00 PM  

@74: The idea of "gods" is that of glorified people in the sky, who can do things like control the weather, and demand religious worship from us wretched mortals. Think about the nature of the idea. It bears the stamp of human imagination all over it. All we need is the exercise of a little reflection and discernment to realize this.

The universe could be the product of AI. Just one of many more realistic possibilities.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:02 PM  

Younos, there aren't just footprints. There are humans, life, intelligence, sentience, and a universe, all made of matter and energy and things unseen. And once there was nothing, and dimensions unseeable.

Blogger Sam Sutherland July 17, 2019 7:02 PM  

When they say 'science', they mean 'uniformitarianism' and 'materialism'.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:05 PM  

"The idea of "gods" is that of glorified people in the sky, who can do things like control the weather, and demand religious worship from us wretched mortals."

You're still talking about things you don't know about. It's only making you look less and less competent. You are projecting what you wish to be true as if it were true. This is called delusion.

"Think about the nature of the idea. It bears the stamp of human imagination all over it."

If you didn't start at your conclusion and then fabricate how you got to it, you would realize that this would also be the case if the stamp of God were all over the human imagination. Reflection and discernment my ass. What you really mean is rationalization and obfuscation.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:06 PM  

Younos, God made us in his image and gave us free will. You say God has the stamp of human imagination all over him. We have the stamp of God all over us

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:10 PM  

"Everything is possible except the God of the Bible. Everything" - Younos

Younos, would not an almighty God make us for purpose and enjoyment? And would not a God willing to give his creations free will know that free will comes with uncertainty? Would he know that Younos, whom he loves, possibly deny him and be lost forever?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:11 PM  

You are exactly the same as an animist with that rationalization. You look at imitations made by man and say that they are the only things a god could be.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:11 PM  

@78: Where does your Bible say God lives? It says he lives in the sky. Where did Jesus go when he rose from the dead? He was taken up, wasn't he? Doesn't your Bible also say God sends rain or withholds it? He controls the weather, then. Doesn't he expect worship from mortals? The only real difference between this god and Zeus is in moral character. Zeus was all too human in this respect; but the authors of the Bible came up with a god that embodied a moral ideal.

Blogger Patrick Kelly July 17, 2019 7:15 PM  

@Ken Younousnuthin

You don't know enough about any religion to even be wrong.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:17 PM  

Don't think so small Younos. The universe is far more than you can comprehend. You are willing to entertain an intelligence behind it all. But you can't comprehend that intelligence wanting a relationship with you, whom he loves.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:17 PM  

"It says he lives in the sky."

Dwells in the heavens. As with each of your other attempts, not at all the same thing as what you assume, but you'd already know this if you hadn't pre-concluded that you were much more evolved than the idiots you also presume your ancestors to have been. Vanity.

"The only real difference between this god and Zeus is in moral character. Zeus was all too human in this respect; but the authors of the Bible came up with a god that embodied a moral ideal."

And here is yet another pitfall of your stunted conception. How can there be any such thing as a moral ideal without an arbiter of it? You are using words you don't understand again....

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:18 PM  

Do you know the origin of the word "ideal"?

How about the etymology of the word "moral"?

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:21 PM  

Younos's, your atheist buddies call Him sky god. Your atheist buddies have poisoned your mind. You know nothing other than tropes. God is the Alpha and the Omega here before creation and forever. The god you speak of is a cartoon god created to condemn you. Learn the truth What do you have to lose but have eternal life to gain

Blogger Ingot9455 July 17, 2019 7:23 PM  

Younos. do you think the AI running the simulation has the ability to log into it to make changes to the running parameters?

Like I would log in to a web server to change some files?

Blogger Uncle John's Band July 17, 2019 7:23 PM  

Younos can't write without rhetorical shade. He is fundamentally dishonest. Which makes it easier to feel bright while conducting a master class in ontological and semiotic ignorance.

The definition of too short for this ride, but a good illustration.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:24 PM  

@86: I said "a moral ideal", not "THE moral ideal". Ideas about what is "moral" are the products of blind social and psychological forces. The concept of the moral in the ancient Near East was not exactly the same as the concept of the moral in ancient India or ancient China. There may be points of apparent commonality but if you consider the respective moral systems in their totality, you'd see that they are not identical. "Righteousness" - "tsedaqqa" - is a concept unique to the ancient Near East.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:28 PM  

@88: My proposal that the universe was designed by AI is pure speculation. I only put it out there as a possibility. It's also a possibility that the universe isn't the product of intelligent design at all. We don't know enough about the universe to draw any conclusions.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:29 PM  

Moral and right are constants. Man shades and twists these constants. You are working backwards Younos.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:31 PM  

Is your car intelligent design Younos? Are you not far more complicated than a car? But you are willing to believe one came to be by sheer happenstance?

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:33 PM  

Whether one believes in Jesus or not, do you not wonder why your atheist kinsman hate a literary figure who taught us love one another as you love youself?

Blogger Roger Hill July 17, 2019 7:35 PM  

"It's the rational atheists who are by far the most problematic."
Yes, and in more ways than one. Mao and Stalin were far more consistent atheist than is Dawkins or Harris, but I'd much rather be in the room with the irrational Dawkins, than the calculating Stalin.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 7:39 PM  

How do they hate Jesus? How do they hate what is not real?

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:40 PM  

@92: They are only constants according to your Bible. But, in fact, most Christians and Jews today don't even fully understand key concepts within its moral system, like the concept of "righteousness" for example. And even if they could understand it, the concept would be out of place and inapplicable in their own world. Moral systems are connected to their respective time and place. They cannot be transplanted into a different society or a different culture.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:41 PM  

@96: I do not hate Jesus. I have no problem with Jesus personally. I simply don't believe what the Bible claims about him.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:41 PM  

"I said "a moral ideal", not "THE moral ideal". Ideas about what is "moral" are the products of blind social and psychological forces."

If this were true they would be ephemeral as the wind, and yet they outlive you by many orders of magnitude, throughout all recorded history, with only cosmetic changes.

"My proposal that the universe was designed by AI is pure speculation."

This is what the concept of "demiurge" is. If there is a demiurge, there is necessarily a being whom created it. This is also expressed in the language, "AI", Artificial Intelligence, something composed by an artificer. This hypothesis only removes the problem one step from you. There is still a God somewhere "above" this servant who must have composed it.

"There may be points of apparent commonality but if you consider the respective moral systems in their totality, you'd see that they are not identical."

Are you ready for us to start quoting the actual professional cultural anthropologists who say exactly the opposite of the lie you're telling?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:43 PM  

"They are only constants according to your Bible. But, in fact, most Christians and Jews today don't even fully understand key concepts within its moral system, like the concept of "righteousness" for example."

You who haven't read the book claim to know more than the people who have.

"Moral systems are connected to their respective time and place. They cannot be transplanted into a different society or a different culture."

This is also a lie that you have presumed in order to rationalize your conclusion.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:48 PM  

@99: Concepts of the moral last as long as their societies last. The Bible's concept of the moral no longer exists except within the pages of the Bible. Nobody understands that particular moral system anymore.

AI could be created by intelligent beings like ourselves, and then it could travel back in time to create the universe from the beginning in order to ensure its own existence. Thus spacetime could be an infinite loop. Aside from the idea of "gods" being patently imaginary and not worthy of our consideration, the speculative I've just explained is at least as good as your insistence that the universe was created by a god that has existed infinitely.

Most anthropologists today are left wing. They're partly responsible for promoting all the nonsense we see about multiculturalism. If they actually and honestly took the time to read Plato, Aristotle, Confucius and the scriptures of India, they'd see that moral systems are not identical, and that there is no such thing as universal values.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 7:50 PM  

@100: You have no idea whether I've ever read the Bible or not. We've never met.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 7:57 PM  

"Yes, and in more ways than one. Mao and Stalin were far more consistent atheist than is Dawkins or Harris, but I'd much rather be in the room with the irrational Dawkins, than the calculating Stalin."

Nihilism is the only purely logical conclusion of atheism. From there you decide to do what you feel like doing, everyone else be damned. Mao thought he could and should improve on his countrymen, and managed to kill something upward of forty million of them before he managed to improve on himself by successfully isolating himself from the equation.

The void may seem cold, logical, simple, and appealing, but that's because it's empty. It doesn't even hate you. All it really is is hungry, and that's more than enough.


Here it is, Younos, the first of your supposedly non-standardized morals. Are there or are there not people who "should not be killed" in every functioning society?

The structure of social function we call morality is the law and manifest system by which the varying levels of the human superorganism function. All things not being equal, there is necessarily a "best" or "ideal" or "perfect" mode of operation, and subsequently a set, perfect, contiguous and coherent morality, regardless of how well we know or comprehend exactly what it must be.

Certainly the cosmetics vary to delineate and properly operate different "cells" in the superorganism, yet they all must share the same fundamentals of purpose.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:01 PM  

"The Bible's concept of the moral no longer exists except within the pages of the Bible. Nobody understands that particular moral system anymore."

The Bible's explication of the moral is the foundation having manifested and still upholding the society in which you live and by which are enabled to communicate on this forum.

Unless the meaning of words can be changed, the system can be and has been and is understood. You presume that it is not understood because you yourself do not understand it, and in your vanity you cannot allow that anyone else understands what you do not.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:03 PM  

"You have no idea whether I've ever read the Bible or not."

It's clear that you have not. If you had you'd know quite a bit better than you do. If you want to call me a liar, you'll have to answer the question of whether you have read the entire Bible or not.

So, have you read the entire Bible, or just a smattering of verses here and there that you got off of a checklist produced by someone reading in ignorance, foolishness and vainglory like you would?

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 8:04 PM  

@103: //Here it is, Younos, the first of your supposedly non-standardized morals. Are there or are there not people who "should not be killed" in every functioning society?//

Who should and should not be killed is a question determined by the particular moral system in question. In the Old Testament, it was a moral act for God to command Joshua to wipe out the Canaanites - man, woman, child, elderly, all of them. We judge that as "immoral" because we do not understand that particular moral system. The Old Testament also says blasphemers and adulterers should be executed. This was perfectly okay under their moral system.

If we consider other texts besides the Bible, we find the same thing. When we read Thucydides, for example, we realize that the ancient Greeks did not consider it unethical or immoral to wipe out entire cities and enslave people during wartime. Today we consider such acts to be crimes against humanity.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 8:06 PM  

@105: I have read the entire Bible. I know it like the back of my hand. I'm willing to bet I know the Bible better than you, even.

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 8:06 PM  

@69- "Santa Claus is patently imaginary"

There was a historical St. Nicholas, so no, not really.

@75- "The universe could be a product of AI"white

If it were, this intelligence would have to have been created by something else. Because that's what "artificial" means. Then you're just pushing the question back a step.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 8:10 PM  

@104: //The Bible's explication of the moral is the foundation having manifested and still upholding the society in which you live and by which are enabled to communicate on this forum.//

We only have partial understanding of what the Bible teaches as morality, and most of that comes from the New Testament.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:13 PM  

"AI could be created by intelligent beings like ourselves, and then it could travel back in time to create the universe from the beginning in order to ensure its own existence."

Apart from the part where you'd have to prove that anachronological time travel is even theoretically possible, you've now also demonstrated that you don't comprehend causality, or for that matter the logical fallacy known as circular reasoning.

"Aside from the idea of "gods" being patently imaginary and not worthy of our consideration,"

Based on absolutely nothing except for your adamant insistence that it is so. This is called magical thinking.

"the speculative I've just explained is at least as good as your insistence that the universe was created by a god that has existed infinitely."

No, it is causally impossible. Entertaining for juvenile science fiction from, what, Asimov or Bear? However, juvenile it is, and easy to punch holes in.

"they'd see that moral systems are not identical, and that there is no such thing as universal values."

Assertion from ignorance.

Answer the question. Does or does not every human society share the moral precept that there are some people who should not be killed? If you say they do not, you are a liar. If you say they do, that is commonality number one, and we can move on to number two, and three, and four, and....

Blogger Unknown July 17, 2019 8:15 PM  

Greeting from the Illuminati world elite empire Bringing the poor the needy and the talented to the limelight of fame,riches,power and security,get recognised in your business,political race,rise to the top in whatever you do,be protected spiritually and physically! All these you can achieve in a twinkle of an when you get initiated to the great Illuminati empire. Once you get initiated you will get numerous benefits and reward.
Note: That this email was created solely the purpose of our recruitement scheme which will end next month and this offer is for unique once only, If you are not interested in joining the Illuminati empire,then you are advised not to contact us at all. This is because disloyalty is highly not tolerated here in our organization.
Do you agree to be a member of the Illuminati new world order? If yes then kindly contact me back
Via whatsapp +13238802316 or email derekmichealson71@gmail.com

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 8:15 PM  

@108: Santa Claus as we celebrate him in Christmas lore is patently imaginary. He is a man who flies around in a sleigh drawn by magic reindeer, taking less than 12 hours to deliver gifts to every good little boy and girl in the world.

I've explained above that AI could be created by intelligent beings such as ourselves, which then could travel back in spacetime to create the universe from the beginning in order to ensure its own existence. Again, this is pure speculation - but it's 1000x more realistic than supposing that a deity - a sky man - used magic to create everything.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:18 PM  

"We only have partial understanding of what the Bible teaches as morality, and most of that comes from the New Testament."

YOU have only partial understanding. Let's keep this precise. Admittedly most people aren't perfect, but this material is not impossible to comprehend. The basics aren't even difficult to comprehend. That's why they're called basics.

You keep trying to fall back on this line of argument "well all moral systems aren't EXACTLY the same". Duh, jackass. Stop trying to play dumb. They don't have to be exactly the same, but rather sufficiently similar. The frame has to be the same.

And yes, as you know perfectly well, functional societies all have the same frame. They may have different colored headlights and differently moulded body panels, but they die almost immediately if the fundamentals aren't what works.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 8:18 PM  

@110: //it is causally impossible//

It is possible. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies explores this possibility in his book, The Mind of God.

//Does or does not every human society share the moral precept that there are some people who should not be killed?//

Most do unless the society in question has unraveled completely. In any case, the question of exactly who should and should not be killed differs from moral system to moral system. In the Bible it's morally acceptable to wipe out entire peoples. In our own moral system, this is morally unacceptable, we call it "genocide" and are horrified at the thought of it.

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 8:18 PM  

@97- "Moral systems are connected to their respective time and place. They cannot be transplanted into a different society or a different culture"

Therefore, if you have Roman Catholicism in two separate countries, say, or one country at different times, people would be pulling entirely different moral systems out of it? Is there any continuity between Catholics at different times and places, besides fashion? Why are we using the the term "Catholic" to describe them all?

If I'm a law student and I encounter any number of Latin phrases--indicating the legal principles behind them may be as old as the Roman empire--do I hit a mental brick wall? Can I not penetrate their meaning? Or do I concoct an understanding parallel to or completely divergent from what was in the minds of the ancients?

I wonder, can there be any such thing as Western civilization without continuity between different cultures over time?

When missionaries convert non-Westerners to Christianity, do they pick up and of the morals? Or are they just pretending? Could they just as easily be worshipping the sun as Jesus?

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 8:20 PM  

@112- Where did the beings such as ourselves come from, in that case?

You're simply delaying, here, because *artificial* intelligence cannot be the ultimate answer.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:21 PM  

"Santa Claus as we celebrate him in Christmas lore is patently imaginary."

Saint Nicholas is a well documented historical figure. Do you not see the similarity? Your parents told you a dolled up version of the actual history. The Hellenes dramatized up a pantheon.

That someone told an inaccurate story later does not even indicate that there was never any basis. Rather the opposite. If there were no basis, where the hell did the story come from?

Blogger Mark Stoval July 17, 2019 8:22 PM  

It has been fun watching the exchange between the troll and the rest of you. I look in just as I have the time to re-read "Dialogues with the Devil" by Taylor Caldwell. (1967)

Lucifer's description of the fallen men and the hell they built is fascinating. Michael's responses to the letters are equally fascinating.

I would argue that the book is as good a book on theology as you are going to find. Worth a read.


PS:
A note on "you have no proof of God" but "I believe an AI might have done it". That ranks up there with the dumbest thing I have seen in decades --- and that is saying a LOT.


Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 8:22 PM  

@113: //The basics aren't even difficult to comprehend. That's why they're called basics.//

I guarantee you don't have a full understanding of the concept of "righteousness". The Old Testament world was very foreign to our own.

//functional societies all have the same frame.//

So you think genocide is okay? You think executing people for committing adultery is okay? Can you reconcile these things with what you regard as morality?

Blogger Mystic On Main July 17, 2019 8:27 PM  

"I don't know" seems like a perfectly reasonable answer to the question of "God". "I don't know but it seems unlikely" seem equally reasonable.

One thing I've noticed about atheists is that they almost always press their advantage when responding to the question of "is there a God" by directing their response at Christianity and its very specific claims as opposed to claiming there is no "creator", which is a much heavier lift.

Blogger sammibandit July 17, 2019 8:27 PM  

Jeez, at least Hitchens had listenable banter. This simp is as boring as the day is long.

Blogger Avalanche July 17, 2019 8:32 PM  

@30 "God is provable. Something came from nothing

Stating a thing is not proof. How do you KNOW there was nothing? How do you know that's where something came from? How do you know the alleged nothing was, in fact, the ... place? from which came the something?
Stating a thing is not proof.

Blogger Avalanche July 17, 2019 8:35 PM  

@37 "Prove to me someone had a hand in building that." - Atheist

Strawman. If you wisht to "prove" God exists, or even enter into a conversation with someone who is unsure, then using such vapid non-proofs will not help your 'case' in the slightest.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:37 PM  

"It is possible. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies explores this possibility in his book, The Mind of God."

Pop science books? You've been suckered by a quack who doesn't understand the superset discipline of physics, physical science, is subset to natural science, which is subset to metaphysics, which is the discipline that can, strictly by deductive logic, say that his conception is causally impossible.

"Most do unless the society in question has unraveled completely."

Which by comparison to an organism would be, what? Disruption of the cell membrane? Decomposition acting on the corpse? Death of the body? Sound familiar? They didn't obey the manifest law and the consequence was the death of their "body".

"In any case, the question of exactly who should and should not be killed differs from moral system to moral system."

The words differ, the meanings necessarily converge for successively higher functioning societies.

"In the Bible it's morally acceptable to wipe out entire peoples. In our own moral system, this is morally unacceptable, we call it "genocide" and are horrified at the thought of it."

We're practicing it here in the USA as we speak. Instead of putting people to the sword we've gotten a little slicker. For instance, we have massive systems in place convincing people of fertile age that they should be using birth control and not having children so that they can have more "fun". The result is the same, although stretched over a bit more time. The number of the people dwindles until it disappears or has to be amalgamated with other disintegrated population(s).

The above is only one means of modern genocide. Why kill something with foul poison when a sweet one will see them do it to themselves?

This is not difficult to understand. Do you believe in capital punishment? If you do, can you not understand how the same might be a necessary consequence for a malign people? Without doubt an undertaking of dire import not to be set irreverantly in motion.

You ignore the context because you did not understand it. While some peoples were wiped out, others were protected. Genocide was arguable much less less a free for all than it is today.

Blogger Brick Hardslab July 17, 2019 8:38 PM  

Yes.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:40 PM  

"I guarantee you don't have a full understanding of the concept of "righteousness". The Old Testament world was very foreign to our own."

The Bible literally defines it, and does so more than once. It is perfect action.

Blogger tublecane July 17, 2019 8:40 PM  

@99- It is instructive that even morally relativistic and probably godless anthropologists and other social "scientists" are able to find Human Universals in the moral realm. And a rather extensive list of them, at that.

Blogger sammibandit July 17, 2019 8:52 PM  

Respectfully, Anaximander as referenced briefly in the OP link has good words about trying to force the divine. This one is short and dovetails with what Vox said about omniscience imposing a limit,

The Limitless has no principle because, in such a case, it would be limited.

This is axiomatic. If you don't see that you need a tune-up.

With that said, I can't prove god is real to someone who already decided he is more important than all others in requiring spoon-fed proof, here, now, with your labor and with your co-commitant suffering. Duress by gamma. Any god for the atheist is too much.

Don't Christians suffer for Him under this duress? That's all the proof we need.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 8:57 PM  

"So you think genocide is okay? You think executing people for committing adultery is okay? Can you reconcile these things with what you regard as morality?"

Okay, so now you don't know modern law any more than you do ancient law. Either that or you're pretending.

Tell me. If there is no God, why is genocide wrong? If there is a God, why is genocide wrong?

If there isn't a God, the concepts of "right" and "wrong" would be fallacious, so it could not be wrong. If there is a God, it would by hierarchic logic necessarily determine right and wrong, so if it tells you to genocide X, you genocide X, and if it tells you not to harm a hair on the heads of Y, you treat Y with utmost gentleness, and both of these are right.

As for adultery, your lack of cultural understanding of the period is unsurprising, and would have been remedied had you read the surrounding context and books in question. What do you think usually happened when someone got caught in adultery? Imagine there were no police, just the the spouse, the adulterers, and all three of their families. They get caught, the spouse kills or maims their partner and/or the other adulterer. The family of the maimed responds by killing several of the people from their house, and it all snowballs.

This isn't a hypothetical. This is what actually happened and still happens today in that sort of situation. And even if the adulterers are never caught, the offense is every bit as bad as vampirism would be if it were less metaphorical. If there is a child of adultery the child is lacking legitimate parents, and the structural dysharmonics of that propagate to the surrounding society over time, causing more of the same and worse. The insult "bastard" wasn't so dire for no reason. Bastards were more often than not much worse people than those who were not bastards.

Even if the child were not realized to be a bastard by the partner, the partner is now having a large part of his life stolen caring for a child that is not his.

The offense is dire, and while we enjoy benefits accrued over time by such harsh discipline that allow us to survive indulging in a certain amount of such mistakes today, in harsher circumstances failing to provide the example of severe punishment for such crimes could and often did mean that everybody in that tribe got killed by neighbors who weren't enervated by letting that sort of lawlessness fly.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 8:58 PM  

Avalanche, you don't provide anything.

The universe exists and has order from the smallest particle to the largest body. This reality flies in the face of Newton's second law being that a system will devolve into a more disordered state. Design and construction, or creation override this law. Obviously unless you are blind and stupid you can see order and design all around you.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 9:00 PM  

And guess what. We still agree that adultery is wrong. Different punishment? Sometimes, but it's still wrong.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 9:02 PM  

You can't even reconcile that morality can exist. You literally cannot differentiate values for things, or beings, or actions. You have no basis for it except that you would prefer to think it so.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 9:04 PM  

Avalanche, denying something doesn"t mean there isn't. Not understanding doesn't mean there's not. Not believing doesn't prove there never was or can be.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 9:07 PM  

And for you non-believers we believer's have experienced God's actions through our faith. It is as real as the sun. As tangible as a grain of sand or a galaxy.

With God all things are possible.

Blogger Dave Dave July 17, 2019 9:18 PM  

This Younos guy in the comments is an obvious liar. He's never read the Bible. He doesn't understand anything he's talking about. He hasn't worked through his own ideas to the logical conclusion. Atheists are worse than any kind of deists. They are the least rational, most emotional and are very rarely capable of the level of thought that deists operate on.

Blogger basementhomebrewer July 17, 2019 9:19 PM  

@105: I have read the entire Bible. I know it like the back of my hand. I'm willing to bet I know the Bible better than you, even.

Here is a good question, if you believe all morality is subjective and there are no consequences for lying, why should we believe this statement from you? You have said a good many things that indicate you have not, or at best you skimmed your way through it and didn't think about anything you read.

You think that we wouldn't notice that you are using the same passages of scripture that all atheists use to attempt to attack Christianity? The genocide saw on the old testament is a very popularized argument. It isn't something that hasn't been addressed many times before.

Blogger Mystic On Main July 17, 2019 9:22 PM  

"If there isn't a God, the concepts of "right" and "wrong" would be fallacious, so it could not be wrong..."

Actually if there is no God, then the concept of objective right and wrong are fallacious. However, there are as many subjective concepts of right and wrong as there are people. It's notable that some common concepts of morality one finds across cultures and religions also happen to support community functioning across cultures.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 9:28 PM  

Morality has an original source as do all things. The fact that humans pervert that reality doesn't mean it is not so This is where the atheists get trkpped up. They are starting at the end not the beginning.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 9:31 PM  

"I have read the entire Bible. I know it like the back of my hand. I'm willing to bet I know the Bible better than you, even."

Liar. If you had you would know exactly what righteousness was, yet you claimed that it was inscrutable even though it is defined repeatedly and by several different means.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 9:33 PM  

"However, there are as many subjective concepts of right and wrong as there are people."

Objectively meaningless by definition.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 9:38 PM  

We should pity the atheists Azure for they know not what they do because they are unable to reason.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 9:39 PM  

Their mommy's always praised them and told them they were right.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 9:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 9:43 PM  

@129: //Tell me. If there is no God, why is genocide wrong? If there is a God, why is genocide wrong?//

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was acceptable under the moral system of the Ancient Near East, but it's not acceptable under our own understanding of morality. You are attacking a straw man.

FTR - Paul Davies is a well known theoretical physicist. He is not a "quack" by any means.

I'm not anti-religion, but one downside I see to it is that it causes many (not all) religious people to end up hiding all of their fears and insecurities behind their beliefs. IMO this is why religious people are rude, use personal attacks in debate, and deliberately distort the facts and the opposition's arguments. Not good, not healthy.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 17, 2019 9:46 PM  

Avalanche wrote:How do you KNOW there was nothing? How do you know that's where something came from? How do you know the alleged nothing was, in fact, the ... place? from which came the something?

Av, keep it simple. Is there something? Where did it come from?

Blogger sammibandit July 17, 2019 9:48 PM  

Where is the historical or extant atheist society? Do they reckon atheism through the father or mother, and do aunts or uncles have an important role in child rearing? Do boys go through a rite of passage before or after puberty and what is done with women who don't marry? Is inheritance split between offspring or to the firstborn only? Do young men move away from their fathers when married? What is done with outcasts?

It's like atheists tasted the fruit of truth but said it was bitter.

Blogger Aurelius Gomez July 17, 2019 9:50 PM  

Younos, just don"t close your mind If you are wrong the consequences are forever. Doesn't get much worse than that. We are pulling for you.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 17, 2019 9:54 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"I have read the entire Bible. I know it like the back of my hand. I'm willing to bet I know the Bible better than you, even."

Liar. If you had you would know exactly what righteousness was, yet you claimed that it was inscrutable even though it is defined repeatedly and by several different means.


It's probably lying, because atheists have no reason not to. But even if it has read the entire Bible, it has still understood none of it.

Blogger SirHamster July 17, 2019 9:55 PM  

Ken Younos wrote:@105: I have read the entire Bible. I know it like the back of my hand. I'm willing to bet I know the Bible better than you, even.

Obvious liar is obvious.

Even people who are Christians and have studied the Bible for years would be hesitant to claim they know the Bible that well, never mind claiming they know the Bible better than a complete stranger.

You're an obvious fake.

Someone who knew Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes like the back of his hand wouldn't speak so stupidly. You can't fake Bible knowledge, dummy.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 9:56 PM  

@148: I guarantee I understand the Bible far better than you do.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:00 PM  

@149: //Someone who knew Proverbs, Psalms, and Ecclesiastes like the back of his hand wouldn't speak so stupidly. You can't fake Bible knowledge, dummy.//

"Do I not hate those who hate you, O YHWH?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies."
- Psalm 139:21-22

Interesting verse. It's one out of many in the Psalms and elsewhere, which make it evident that hatred and enmity were acceptable under the moral system of the Old Testament. This changed during the time the Israelites were in exile and under Roman rule, so that a moral system like the one in the New Testament became possible.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 17, 2019 10:00 PM  

@150, that is not my truth. I'm not interested in your truth.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:01 PM  

@149: BTW, I'm pretty sure calling someone a "dummy" goes against New Testament morality.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd July 17, 2019 10:01 PM  

@151, obviously zero understanding.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:03 PM  

@150: Objectively speaking, I guarantee it is waking, sober reality that I understand the Bible far better than you do.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:04 PM  

@154: //obviously zero understanding.//

Please give us your alternative explanation as to why David feels it's okay to hate the wicked and wish their deaths. We'll wait.

Blogger SirHamster July 17, 2019 10:09 PM  

Ken Younos wrote:@149: BTW, I'm pretty sure calling someone a "dummy" goes against New Testament morality.

"You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?"

-Jesus

Matthew 23:17, New Testament

I called you a dummy because you made up a dumb lie about knowing the Bible. I will continue calling you a dummy because you exposed your Bible ignorance right away.

You can't fake Bible knowledge, dummy.

Blogger xevious2030 July 17, 2019 10:13 PM  

"so that they can recognize such beliefs as patently imaginary"

You don't know peoples very well. Or AI. Or spacetime. It's not a sky man even if it is reduced to the retard level of Jesus living in the sky. And reading something doesn't mean you have any real comprehension. Let's see some of that bedazzling display of non reduced in explanation beyond the lessers.

Blogger sammibandit July 17, 2019 10:14 PM  

Hávamál
Let no man glory in the greatness of his mind,
but rather keep watch o'er his wits
Cautious and silent let him enter a dwelling;
to the heedful comes seldom harm,
for none can find a more faithful friend
than the wealth of mother wit.

Genesis 24:21
And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the LORD had made his journey prosperous or not.

Exodus 2:4
And his sister stood afar off, to wit what would be done to him.

Wit is pretty important. God's humor is sending the witless.

Blogger JAG July 17, 2019 10:17 PM  

Ken Younos wrote:@149: BTW, I'm pretty sure calling someone a "dummy" goes against New Testament morality.

That's nothing. Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees the Synagogue of Satan.

If you got something as simple as this, then your claims about the Bible are pretty weak. I think everyone here knows the Bible better than I do... except for you.

Blogger xevious2030 July 17, 2019 10:18 PM  

That is what you want, isn't it.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:19 PM  

@157: Jesus wasn't personally attacking individuals when he said that. He was describing the Pharisees collectively, as a group. That's different from calling someone names like "dummy" or "stupid" in dialogue.

"For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." - Matthew 12:34

"But now, put off all such things as anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth." - Colossians 3:8

"How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no one can tame the tongue—a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh." - James 3:5-12

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:25 PM  

Many religious people hide their fears and insecurities behind their religious beliefs. This is why they're so nasty and hostile toward those who disagree with their views. When I express disagreement, I'm basically attacking your source of self-protection (not deliberately, but this is how you interpret it) - and you feel threatened. Pretty pathetic. If you won't follow your religion with integrity, what's it worth to you? Leave it, for your own sake.

Blogger SirHamster July 17, 2019 10:28 PM  

Ken Younos wrote:Jesus wasn't personally attacking individuals when he said that. He was describing the Pharisees collectively, as a group. That's different from calling someone names like "dummy" or "stupid" in dialogue.

Imagine being dumb enough to think you can attack a group without attacking the individuals inside the group.

Like firing a shotgun into a crowd, and saying it's different because you weren't aiming at a specific person.

Dummy is a description of your behavior, dummy, and you've earned it.

Best path forward is to own and retract your lies, and then shut up.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:30 PM  

@164: More reckless, abusive language from your mouth, in addition to shameless rationalization of your behavior. Keep showing us that your religion doesn't really mean anything to you - or at least, it doesn't mean to you what it ought to mean. For you it's jsut a safe space. You feel I'm taking that source of security away.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 10:33 PM  

@164: FTR, if you think it's the same thing to criticize an entire group as "foolish" and to call someone you're talking to names like "dummy" and "stupid" - tell us what wouldn't be acceptable. What is abusive language? We'll wait.

Blogger xevious2030 July 17, 2019 10:43 PM  

"Keep showing us."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 11:02 PM  

"I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was acceptable under the moral system of the Ancient Near East, but it's not acceptable under our own understanding of morality. You are attacking a straw man."

You are presenting a straw man. You intentionally ignore context in order to make implications you have no basis for.

Blogger Mystic On Main July 17, 2019 11:04 PM  

"It's probably lying, because atheists have no reason not to."

There are loads of reasons beyond Divine command for atheists not to lie. Simple game theory proves that. That's the problem atheists have. Subjective morality isn't a problem either. The problem atheists have to face down is the unknown in the face mortality.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 11:17 PM  

"Paul Davies is a well known theoretical physicist. He is not a "quack" by any means."

He's still necessarily wrong if he says what you claim, and quite obviously and ridiculously so.

"I'm not anti-religion, but one downside I see to it is that it causes many (not all) religious people to end up hiding all of their fears and insecurities behind their beliefs. IMO this is why religious people are rude, use personal attacks in debate, and deliberately distort the facts and the opposition's arguments. Not good, not healthy."

This is complete projection of what you yourself are doing. You expect others to behave the way you do and for the reasons you do, because it's all you understand.

"It's probably lying, because atheists have no reason not to."

It's definitely lying, and very brazenly. Its list of arguments are pop-atheist bog-standard dreck that wouldn't stand up to inspection by an honest twelve year old child.

I've memorized half of Romans and half of the several other entire books. While there are some scholars who memorize the whole thing, this guy is without any doubt not one of them. I don't believe for a second that he's read any particular entire book or letter of it.

"Interesting verse. It's one out of many in the Psalms and elsewhere, which make it evident that hatred and enmity were acceptable under the moral system of the Old Testament. This changed during the time the Israelites were in exile and under Roman rule, so that a moral system like the one in the New Testament became possible."

Wrong. You're listing things some ignorant and dishonest churchian taught you.

"BTW, I'm pretty sure calling someone a "dummy" goes against New Testament morality."

That would be calling my brother a fool. You are not my brother in any sense, and are a fool, and a liar.

"Please give us your alternative explanation as to why David feels it's okay to hate the wicked and wish their deaths. We'll wait."

It's still okay to do both. But then, you'd know that if you'd actually read it rather than a laundry list created by other ignorant atheists like you.

"If you won't follow your religion with integrity, what's it worth to you? Leave it, for your own sake."

You profusely and knowingly lie, and continuously attempt to speak about things of which you have no knowledge. You are the communicative equivalent of worthless shit, and I rather expect to see you spammed in the morning. I certainly won't be wasting any more time on you.

To everyone else, don't touch the poop. This guy is definitely either a troll or not worth distinguishing from one.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 11:18 PM  

@168: A straw man? Explain.

Blogger Ken Younos July 17, 2019 11:27 PM  

@179: //This is complete projection of what you yourself are doing.//

Show us one instance where I have called anyone a name like "dummy" or "stupid", or "liar". The criticisms I have leveled have all been in response to hostility from you people. Show us where I initiated any such talk. We'll wait.

//I've memorized half of Romans//

I wrote Romans.

//That would be calling my brother a fool. You are not my brother in any sense, and are a fool, and a liar.//

So abusive language is okay toward those who aren't Christians? "Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame." - 1 Peter 3:15-16

//It's still okay to do both.//

Yeah...I'm pretty sure this isn't the case. It goes against New Testament ethics to hate anyone and wish their death.

//You are the communicative equivalent of worthless shit//

What saintly Christlike language. If I were a Christian and I heard my pastor talking to this way to someone, I'd find myself another church.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 11:33 PM  

I do love the concept of the philosophical zombie. Particularly the part where the people who hypothesize it necessarily are it according to their own philosophy and logic.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 11:36 PM  

Or maybe I have that backward.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine July 17, 2019 11:39 PM  

Ahh right. The materialists who argue that there is can be no such thing as a philosophical zombie because under their philosophy they themselves fit the description. There we go.

Blogger tublecane July 18, 2019 12:04 AM  

@173- Don't we call them NPCs now? Or has that fad played itself out?

@146- The atheist societies that come to mind are communist ones of the 20th century. They went a long way towards attempting to dismantle traditional order. Economically, religiously, sexually, and so forth. But they usually realized fairly quickly that was u workable. Some realized later than sooner, and as a result a greater portion of their populations died.

Nowhere were traditional institutions, faiths, customs, etc. completely done away with. These officially atheist regimes subsisted by feeding off of the Old Ways.

Blogger Ken Younos July 18, 2019 12:18 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ken Younos July 18, 2019 12:19 AM  

@176: Moral systems arise spontaneously in cultures, as a part of the fabric of society. Usually religion is a part of that fabric also. Modernization, industrialization and the creation of a market based society has had the effect of dissolving that fabric, and with it the values and norms of a moral system. It is becoming clear, however, that our political order can't survive without social norms - so I think what needs to be done is identify basic norms we've inherited from our religious national past, and turn these into law. So we may no longer have a unitary and coherent moral system, but making important norms a part of legislation would impose necessary and sufficient structure on the body politic, which would in turn preserve our republic.

Blogger Long Live The West July 18, 2019 12:29 AM  

Younas apparently thinks he is better than God since he is above using such harsh language as 'dummy'.

Blogger Rocklea Marina July 18, 2019 1:00 AM  

The universe could be the product of AI. Just one of many more realistic possibilities.

Artificial:- Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.

I'm sure, having had more than a few of these moments myself, that a normal person would retract such a stupid statement, but you really are special Younos.

Blogger Ken Younos July 18, 2019 1:21 AM  

@180: Tell us what you think is stupid about the statement.

Blogger xevious2030 July 18, 2019 1:43 AM  

"Show us one instance"
"Tell us what you think"

Blogger Balam July 18, 2019 1:45 AM  

@178 Very good very good, so the atheist scientific socialism again. It's about time we had more Lysenkos, there's been an awful amount of traditionalism mucking up the sciences as a whole. And again, and again, no matter how many corpses it takes. The bible calls this trying to cut the branch off from the root and thriving without it. I wish you better fortune as first citizen this time around, for all our sakes.

It is also odd to me that you criticize self-professed Christians for not living up to Christ's standards when it is made very clear in the texts that no earthly living man but one ever could, did, or ever will. Saved by faith and not works and all that. Why do you have this expectation at all? Earthly perfection is a very Jewish belief (especially considering the Jewish leaders of the scientific atheist movements), any Judaism in your formal training?

Blogger Unknown July 18, 2019 1:46 AM  

As Taleb said: "no evidence of disease is not the same as evidence of no disease"

Blogger Ken Younos July 18, 2019 1:54 AM  

@183: I support capitalism. I am against socialism.

Paul said "drive out the wicked from among you" (1 Cor 5:13). That's nonsensical instruction if it is not possible to live up to Christian standards. 1 John also says again and again that "he who does what is right is righteous" while "he who abides in sin is a child of the devil". Your character and the overall orientation of your life matters if you want to be a Christian. If you're living in sin, the New Testament says you should be excommunicated, and that in fact you may have never "known" Christ in the first place.

Blogger Rocklea Marina July 18, 2019 2:22 AM  

Tell us what you think is stupid about the statement.

Human create thyself.

Blogger Ken Younos July 18, 2019 2:30 AM  

@186: Tell us why you think that's a stupid statement. It's entirely plausible that an intelligent species somewhere in the universe has created or will create a super AI, which in turn creates the universe backwards from the beginning in order to ensure its own existence. In fact the mathematical laws of physics uncannily resemble software code.

https://medium.com/@mariana.vernieri/simulation-theory-2-0-this-universe-was-created-by-an-artificial-intelligence-57a674aa332f

Blogger Rocklea Marina July 18, 2019 3:16 AM  

Tell us why you think that's a stupid statement. It's entirely plausible that an intelligent species somewhere in the universe has created or will create a super AI, which in turn creates the universe backwards from the beginning in order to ensure its own existence. In fact the mathematical laws of physics uncannily resemble software code.

The statements are incorrect definitionally. The stupid lies elsewhere.

Blogger tublecane July 18, 2019 3:55 AM  

@187- "creates the universe backwards from the beginning"

Is God like Johnny B. Goode in Back to the Future? In the timeline going forward from 1955 as influenced by a time-traveling Marty McFly, the song has no author. Because Marty heard it from Chuck Berry, but he goes back and performs it before Chuck wrote it. Chuck's cousin Marvin has Chuck listen to Martin's band playing over the telephone, and we are to believe inspiration struck.

Now, we know Marty didn't originate the song. If Chuck didn't either in this alternate timeline, what do you say to someone who asks who actually wrote it? Well, Chuck, obviously.

Artificial intelligence cannot create the universe from scratch backwards. It is itself a created thing. There is no nothing out of which nothing comes for it.

What created the AI? Or what created what created it? That's the issue. Jiggering with the timeline won't change anything regarding First Cause.

Blogger Toby Temple July 18, 2019 5:16 AM  

@Ken Younos

I am certain that you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Bible.

Blogger Quicksilver July 18, 2019 5:57 AM  

As an open-minded atheist, I'm struggling with a definition issue of God. As it appears from my study of the God question that different faiths and traditions point toward different versions of God.

Is God an external entity, an internal one or an ever present one?

Are the Christian God, Muslim God and Buddhist God ultimately aspects of the same thing or are there fundamental differences?

Blogger Paul M July 18, 2019 6:43 AM  

> But in looking for proof of gods, our search is pathetically limited.

Because maybe God is hiding behind the couch, or in a teapot orbiting Pluto, and we have simply failed to look there yet.

If God is what the theists describe, then he is not something that you could simply accidentally fail to find.

Blogger VD July 18, 2019 6:59 AM  

Is God an external entity, an internal one or an ever present one?

External.

Are the Christian God, Muslim God and Buddhist God ultimately aspects of the same thing or are there fundamental differences?

Fundamental differences. This isn't that hard if you've actually done any reading at all into various sacred texts. The Christian God also bears no resemblance to Huitzilopochtli, Moloch, Zeus, or Lugh.

Blogger VD July 18, 2019 7:00 AM  

If God is what the theists describe, then he is not something that you could simply accidentally fail to find.

You can't detect 85 percent of the matter in the universe and you're surprised that you haven't found God?

Blogger Harambe July 18, 2019 7:26 AM  

What happened 10 000 or so years ago that made us "smart" all of a sudden? I'm not satisfied with HUR DUR WE STARTED PLANTING GRAINS. We spent 90 000 years wandering around aimlessly, killing the odd mammoth and eating berries. Then suddenly on day we decide to plant some wild grass and wait for it to ripen? I would have been much more open to the suggestion that someone or something sat us down at a metaphorical school desk and taught us this stuff.

Now, that's not actually what I believe, but were I not raised a believer, I'd have at least been very open to the idea of gradual revelation by some more advanced race. It might not be conclusive proof of anything, but the atheist's refusal to even entertain a legitimate question such as this shows me they're not as "open-minded" as they claim to be.

Blogger basementhomebrewer July 18, 2019 7:30 AM  

"It's probably lying, because atheists have no reason not to."

There are loads of reasons beyond Divine command for atheists not to lie. Simple game theory proves that. That's the problem atheists have. Subjective morality isn't a problem either. The problem atheists have to face down is the unknown in the face mortality.


This argument is a faulty especially in this context. Game theory says you don't lie when the risk is high that you will eventually be caught in a lie and it will have a lasting negative outcome that does not outweigh the potential gain. When the risk is low to nil then lie all you want. Mr anonymous atheist comes out on the low risk, low damage side of things. He has every incentive to lie for that sense of superiority and smugness.

What saintly Christlike language. If I were a Christian and I heard my pastor talking to this way to someone, I'd find myself another church.

Hi, Mr Alinsky. Sorry, we have seen this game before and we aren't playing by it. The fact of the matter is you aren't a Christian endwelled by the Holy Spirit and therefore you have no discernment. You make this abundantly clear in many of the ways you have interpreted various scriptures. Your attempts to cast Churchianity as the true form of Christianity are noted and we aren't going to play by your rules.

Blogger Harambe July 18, 2019 7:42 AM  

The church shows the strongest growth when the pastor is saying unkind things about assholes. Our's summed it up thusly: Preach about Heaven, and everyone goes to hell. Preach about hell and everyone goes to Heave.

Blogger xevious2030 July 18, 2019 7:50 AM  

"a super AI, which in turn creates the universe backwards from the beginning"

You can't go back in time. And even with every last bit of matter forming a quantum computer, the deficiency would be hopeless. You can't do it. God is,detached in a way you simply can not compare to. What is the universe composed of, outside the universe?

Blogger xevious2030 July 18, 2019 8:09 AM  

In otherwordd, you can recompile the code all you want to, and you will still be defficient, inadequate, and you will be so not God.

Blogger xevious2030 July 18, 2019 9:31 AM  

"describing the Pharisees collectively, as a group"

So your sort are dumbasses. Would that be acceptable?

1 – 200 of 222 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts