Atheists To Put Up Their Own 10 Commandments of Atheism

_{Donald McLaughlin

June 7, 2013

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheists in Northern Florida have succeeded in getting permission to put up a a rival monument to a nearby monument to the Ten Commandments. For the first time we will have what will amount to an Atheist Decalogue literally carved in stone. I for one look forward to seeing what is in this decalogue with great anticipation.

It isn’t yet clear what exactly the 10 Atheist laws will be, but whatever they are, it will be very interesting to see whether or not the atheist glitterati (Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, et.al.) sign on. If they don’t, this might be the first instance of denominationalism creeping into the atheistic religion. In any case, at last the core beliefs (or lack thereof) of atheists will be carved in stone for all to see. This will be great fun!

Comments

But to concentrate on what Hawking himself believes to be his strong suit for a creator of the universe, i.e. Gravity. What possible moral relevance and implication can Gravity have to an objective moral code? Well, much stronger than a person would think beforehand. It turns out that Gravity is strongly implicated as arising as an 'entropic force',,
Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/
And the moral relevance of gravity as an entropic force is that the accumulated effects of entropy on our bodies is the primary reason why we all grow old and die,, Here's a interesting talk by geneticist Dr. John Sanford. Starting at the 17 minute mark going to the 22 minute mark, he relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.
John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s
Notes from John Sanford's preceding video:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 (some recent estimates have it at 30-35) mutations are passed on to each new generation.
This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of entropy on our bodies:
Aging Process - 80 years in 40 seconds - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSdxYmGro_Y
Moreover, Hawking himself, who has basically made Gravity his god, should, instead of hailing Gravity as the creator of the universe, be cursing Gravity for playing a major 'entropic' part in giving him his life-long disease,,
How Has Stephen Hawking Lived to 70 With ALS? - January 2012 Excerpt: Beginning in 2006 it became clear that like a lot of other neurodegenerative diseases, ALS was determined by the accumulation of abnormal proteins in the brain. Ten percent of ALS is genetic and based on a gene mutation. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/01/how-has-stephen-hawking-lived-to-70-with-als.html
As should be needless to say, finding Gravity to be a very destructive force instead of a creative force is very antagonistic to Hawking's view of gravity as a creative force, and this finding is very supportive to the view that there is indeed a 'moral reason' for why God has made the universal laws as he has:
Romans 8:18-21 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Moreover, it can be argued that it was specifically this entropic force of death and decay, which is intimately connected to Gravity, which Jesus overcame in his triumph over death,,,
A Quantum Hologram of Christ's Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847 THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. - Isabel Piczek - Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox.
Thus, while Hawking may find gravity appealing as a creator, I find gravity, because of the entropy associated with it, to be grossly insufficient in that regards, and moreover I find gravity to have a very intriguing overriding moral component to it. An overriding moral component that forces us to directly face our saddest moral dilemmas in this life, namely death and disease! Thus while it may seem weird to most people that the universal laws that govern physical reality, specifically gravity, would be found to have a moral component associated with them, it is none-the-less a powerful positive line of argumentation that objective morality arises from God.
The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html
Verse and music:
Revelation 20:14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. Alter Bridge – Rise Today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYG3BPvFOgs
bornagain77_{June 9, 2013
June
06
Jun
9
09
2013
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Theists usually use, what I personally find to be, negative argumentation to try to say that atheists cannot account for 'objective' morality,,
Richard Dawkins and the Moral Argument for God by William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f3I2QGpucs The Heretic -Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? Andrew Ferguson – March 25, 2013 Excerpt: A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 semi related note: Euthyphro's Dilemma answered - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffPFCCx-iY
and thus, because of the obvious shortcoming within the atheistic worldview to account for the objective morality of humanity, and the, again what I personally find to be, negative formulation of the moral argument against them (i.e. atheists cannot reasonably account for objective morals), atheists are forever trying outlandish evolutionary scenarios to try to account for the overriding objective moral code which is obviously present in humanity (i.e. the obvious objective moral code of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', or the more precise Christian version, 'love others as you love yourself'),,, Here is an example of one such outlandish attempt, and the refutation against that attempt, to account for objective morality within the atheistic worldview,,,
The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc
,,,in relation to all this, I would like to point out another line of positive argumentation for objective morality that Theists have besides this negative line.,, Moreover, this positive line of argumentation for morality arises in direct connection to modern science itself.,,, To set some background for this positive line of argumentation, C.S. Lewis rightly notes that the modern scientific revolution, in the Judeo-Christian west, was born directly out of a overriding Judeo-Christian belief in a objective moral lawgiver, i.e. God, who transcends and governs humanity,,,
The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it.” Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
In fact, upon discovering the laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared this very 'unscientific' thought:
‘O God, I am thinking your thoughts after you!’ [2] - Johann Kepler https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
To envision just how divorced modern science is from this original Theistic line of reasoning, upon which modern science was (and is) built, a line of reasoning which Kepler, and many other founders of modern science, fully embraced, try to imagine Stephen Hawking now uttering those very same words of Kepler in relation to his recent work in cosmology. I would literally consider it a miracle if Hawking were to ever utter words similar to Kepler's (or similar to many of Galileo's or Newton's words). Instead, from Hawking, and from many of his present colleagues, with precious few exceptions, we now have such non sequiturs uttered as the following,,
“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.The universe didn't need a God to begin; it was quite capable of launching its existence on its own," Stephen Hawking - 'The Grand Design'
One of the precious few exceptions, in present academic circles, who have taken offense to Hawking's hubris is John Lennox,,
Stephen Hawking is wrong - 2010 “But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. – John Lennox
Yet, contrary to what Hawking believes for the sufficiency of the presence of Gravity to account for the creation of the universe, the precision (fine-tuning) discovered for these various universal laws, including the fine-tuning for Gravity itself,,
Finely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/7659795/ Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661
,,, have atheists scrambling to all sorts of absurd ad hoc scenarios, such as the multiverse, to try to explain fine-tuning away. The preceding video by Michael Strauss, at the 6:49 mark, had a very bizarre quote from atheists that reveals some of the absurd lengths that atheists are willing to go to to try to deny the obvious Theological implications of all this fine-tuning for universal laws.,,bornagain77_{June 9, 2013
June
06
Jun
9
09
2013
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Who says stones can't have a magisterial understanding of jurisprudence and chisel commandments on themselves?!Axel_{June 9, 2013
June
06
Jun
9
09
2013
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Though written in stone atheist commandments aren't. In the nature of the case they can't be.lpadron_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

DonaldM @30:
I think the purpose in their minds is to demonstrate that there is no difference in authority between the Ten Commandments of the OT and whatever their minds conceive for the park bench…meaning neither has any actual authority. Though the atheists would probably claim “logic and reason” as their authority while denying there’s any whatsoever to the Ten Commandments…
Indeed. Ironically, the very first comment on this thread by JLAfan2001 demonstrates this mindset. You may have called it.Eric Anderson_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Wallbuilder's David Barton tells Glenn Beck about the Christian Heritage and Faith of the American Founding Fathers. (March 2010) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uODn4bRvI4g#t=172s Part2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwYUvz3YppQ Part3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OauNPiyzUjEbornagain77_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

DM @30
Rather,I think the purpose in their minds is to demonstrate that there is no difference in authority between the Ten Commandments of the OT and whatever their minds conceive for the park bench…meaning neither has any actual authority. Though the atheists would probably claim “logic and reason” as their authority while denying there’s any whatsoever to the Ten Commandments…even though I’m quite sure they adhere to several of them any ways, or least expect others to.
I can see that as a typical tactic. So the 10 C's are so wise that they are the foundation for the laws of many nations, the AC's will most likely be the foundation for nothing in particular but both should have equal weight and authority except the AC's are more equal than others because they're based on reason. Never mind that the 10 C's are based on reason too, just not human reason but that of a being much higher. Demonstrably so for no other reason than their great influence, proven record throughout history and near universal use of at least portions. That sounds like typical atheist thinking. Humanistic relativism isn't worth the medium it's communicated with. Proverbs (ESV):
3:7 - Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. 26:12 - Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him. 14:12 - There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.
bb_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

I'm willing to bet money that one of the quotes is from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury baptists where he describes a "wall of separation" between the church and the government.Barb_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

bb in #16 "We’ll see if the atheist commandments mean enough to anyone to preserve and broadcast for 3,000 years. 1000 years? 100? 10? 1?" Good point. Will whatever ends being on the park bench be copied down and disseminated as part of some sort of Atheist sacred text? Personally, I believe that they have no real interest in promoting any certain list of things that any self-respecting atheist must believe to be an atheist. Rather,I think the purpose in their minds is to demonstrate that there is no difference in authority between the Ten Commandments of the OT and whatever their minds conceive for the park bench...meaning neither has any actual authority. Though the atheists would probably claim "logic and reason" as their authority while denying there's any whatsoever to the Ten Commandments...even though I'm quite sure they adhere to several of them any ways, or least expect others to.DonaldM_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

'This is an unusual stance. One would think it would be far more unreasonable to expect archeological evidence of a specific event from ancient history than to expect archeological evidence of a species which was prevalent over a wide span of geography.' I can imagine their response to that: 'Those theists are devilishly cunning...'Axel_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

What do atheists/evolutionists/materialists constantly accuse YEC's/Christians/ID'ers of? Quote mining? From what I gather here, this bench will be a monument to quote mining. A great stone strawman.bb_{June 8, 2013
June
06
Jun
8
08
2013
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

F/N: While we see a note in the OP that the 10 commandments will be in effect "countered" [scare quotes] by American Atheist citations from defunct civil law of the commonwealth of Israel, it seems that the onward,broader Biblical context and wider, worldview level issues on grounding morality from a atheistical perspective will apparently not be mentioned in the proposed atheistical monument in north Florida. For an example of broader biblical context, let us note, from Paul in Romans, which is the context directly relevant to a Christian polity and community (as can be easily confirmed):
Rom 2:1 1 . . . you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things [--> i.e. when one passes judgement, one acknowledges the force of moral judgement of humans, and so is under obligation to acknowledge the relevant grounds of such binding law and its core substance] . . . . 6 [God, in final judgement] will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [--> I take this to be pivotal, do we walk towards the truth and the right we know or should know? when we stumble, do we show penitence before conscience and thus He who has given us that candle within? then do we get up and keep going?] 8 but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath [--> as in, what is the truth and the right we do or should know, but turn from in order to pursue our own wrongful way?] . . . . 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. [--> righteousness must be lived, not just talked] 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus [--> the candle within has a valid edition of the core Law of God, and the root of this is neighbour love, as Paul goes on to say in Ch 13] . . . . Rom 13: 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. [--> sound civil order with justice is God's will] For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [--> which implies that legitimate civil authorities, too, are subject to principles of justice and neighbour-love, hence the force of the challenge in Ac 5:29: if a civil authority is clearly and directly out of line, one will respect the office but must obey what is right from God . . . there is a whole issue of interposition of lower magistrates or popular representatives acting for/with the people in the teeth of government gone bad . . . (cf. discussion here on in context.)] 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. [--> that is, in the normal course; a ruler who goes bad is a misruler and tyrant] Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience . . . . 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. 12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires. [ESV]
By failing to properly address that wider context (and more) while snipping defunct Israelite Commonwealth civil law out of context to suggest that the Judaeo-Christian framework for morality and law in civil society is bronze age barbarism, is grossly unfair by way of a loaded, atmosphere-poisoning strawman attack. (It also ducks the wider issue of the grounding of worldviews, including the pivotal reality of God. Cf. here on.) Worse, such is in promotion of an evolutionary materialism that has in it no foundational IS that can objectively ground OUGHT. (Cf. here. Across time, the only serious candidate for that is the inherently good Creator God, whose reality is evident on grounds already linked. hence the force of the US DOI of 1776, that the founders speaking as representatives held these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights [which imply correlative duties of care: to life, liberty, property, etc], which it is the role and duty of government to defend through justice.) The implication of that has been on public record since c 360 BC, where Plato publicly warned out civilisation on the dangers of might and manipulation make 'right' radical relativism and associated nihilism touted by ruthless factions:
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say . . . [t]he elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
We can hardly say that we have not been warned, and that we have not had a credible alternative. But the main lessons of history -- per Santayana -- are that hose who refuse to heed its lessons are doomed to relive its worst chapters, and that by and large we stubbornly -- and foolishly -- insist on that refusal. I suggest that those who want to understand, should go here to the Noonan discussion of the Blonie fields moment in Poland's history just over thirty years ago. I'll bet this one is NOT in the history books we study from, even as it was not in the news played on state controlled atheistical media in Poland that fateful June of thirty-four years past now. And yes, we are now in a day where what they are NOT teaching or telling us is even more important than what hey are. KFkairosfocus_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT}

The bench will include quotes from Thomas Jefferson, as well as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the founder of American Atheists.
o/~ Which of these things is not like the others? Which of these things just doesn't belong? Can you tell me which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song? Three of the things belong together Three of these things are kind of the same Can you guess which one of these doesn't belong here? Now it's time to play our game. o/~nullasalus_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

A park bench, of all things. Doesn't seem like much of a monument, but here it is: The courtyard outside the Bradford County Courthouse in north Florida will soon become home to a monument to atheism. This small county has reached a deal to let a national organization install a 1,500-pound granite bench near an existing Ten Commandments monument that prompted a lawsuit after it was installed last year. The bench will include quotes from Thomas Jefferson, as well as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists. It will also include a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning. Will Sexton, an attorney representing Bradford County, stressed that the monument will be paid for and maintained by American Atheists. From: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/North-Fla-county-to-allow-atheist-monument-4583969.phpBarb_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Regading JLAfan at post 14: Another interesting inconsistency - skeptics are very quick to criticize sources or references which they consider biased (for instance, which have a stated mission related to Christianity, etc.) but are never hesitant to boldly put forth a source or reference which clearly has a bias against Christianity. Newsflash - this sounds stupid: You can't believe that biased Christian website and if you just look at this talk origins faq (or fill in the blank substitute) you would know the truth. What's good (or not good) for the goose ...ecs2_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

An interesting observation: When a materialist is faced with the inconsistencies and contradictions of the fossil record with respect to Darwinian evolution they respond that it is unreasonable to expect evidence of every transitional form and that the fossil record is simply incomplete, as would be expected give the time lapse between the periods under study and contemporary archeological methods. However, they rarely extend this consideration to others, as seen here. Despite considerable cultural and historiographic evidence of the Exodus (http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/Exodus.htm), JLAfan does not hesitate to assert that the lack of positive external confirmation can be equated to disproof. This is an unusual stance. One would think it would be far more unreasonable to expect archeological evidence of a specific event from ancient history than to expect archeological evidence of a species which was prevalent over a wide span of geography.ecs2_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

F/N: I would like to see a worldview level grounding that makes coherent, empirical fact anchored sense out of this snippet of HM III: _________ >> This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following: Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. [--> scientism . . . ducks the issue of coherence of mind grounded in blind chance and mechanical necessity] We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. [--> a priori evolutionary materialism] Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. [--> materialism, asserts nature to be eternal, what evidence? Or else, that it is self-caused . . . oops] We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. [--> on what basis? what defines a need, and an interest: might makes right?] Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. [--> interests of course injects power agendas, the exact problem] We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity [--> what gives such dignity, is that just emotional manipulation or undue borrowing from Judaeo-Christian values?] , and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility. [--> How grounded and bounded?] Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. [--> in short we have no inherent value or purpose so we make up as we go . . . which is indistinguishable form nihilism in the end . . . and so on] >> _________ Sounds wonderful until you ask in details what is the worldviews level, comparative difficulties foundational warrant. Then it falls apart. KF PS: BTW, IIRC, Ms Scott of NCSE is a signatory. Rather puts a different colour on that little institution's activities.kairosfocus_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

bb: You are onto something. Last I checked, they were on humanist manifesto version III, '30s,. '70's and 00's. They were busy trying to make virtue out of necessity, without apparently realising they were underscoring the hollowness of their pretensions by showing the sort of radical relativism that Plato warned about in The Laws Bk X, 2350 years ago. BA, you have your finger on something. Accounting coherently and on empirical warrant for the ability to reason in general and to reason morally and to ground things like rights and their correlate duties, all point to deep-seated challenges for evolutionary materialism. As for debates on the exodus and Israelite conquest, I suspect the root of troubles in the more radical schools of archaeology lies in issues with dating schemes. I think radical skepticism came in and went back out of fashion again over the past 15 or so years. I suspect that subtle background indicators on trade routes, patterns of political and military interactions, states and peoples [like there used to be a very dismissive view on the Hittites . . . USED to be . . . ] types and frequencies of names, price levels and so forth, things that would not be easily preserved in legends or crop up in made up stories, are more telling in aggregate than people are wont to give credit. They give the ring of concurrency or living memory and the pattern of habitual accuracy that speaks volumes. And the verdict on both NT and OT is very positive on such. Those sorts of details are the sorts of facts that need to be adequately accounted for on the alternative models being put forth, and they are exactly the things that don't do so well by skeptics. But the pivotal case is the one we need to address, the NT. In particular the 60+ years line of account presented to us by Luke in Lk-Ac. This will give an baseline and it also speaks strongly to the living tradition of Israel as of that time. Moreover, the bottomline principle is that if Jesus of Nazareth is who he claimed to be and per prophesies definitely in circulation centuries ahead, his resurrection means that our attitude to the Scriptures had better line up with his. Attempts to debate points that ignore or distract form this, are open to the charge of being strawman rhetoric. So, I suggest a look here on, as a beginning to set things in order. KFkairosfocus_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Though, because of his Young Earth Biblical view, Paul James-Griffiths shys away from the dating of the area for the first civilization, the dating of the first 'advanced' human civilization, around that area, is dated to 12,000 years before the present thus roughly matching up with the 13,000 year ago dating of the catastrophic meg-flooding:
Stone Age Temple May Be Birthplace of Civilization Excerpt: The elaborate temple at Gobelki Tepe in southeastern Turkey, near the Syrian border, is staggeringly ancient: 11,500 years old, from a time just before humans learned to farm grains and domesticate animals. According to the German archaeologist in charge of excavations at the site, it might be the birthplace of agriculture, of organized religion — of civilization itself. http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/gobeklitepe/index
Here is a very interesting geographical finding which corroborates the archeological finding for the first human civilization at Ankara:
The Center of the Earth by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: The problem is basically to determine that point on the earth’s surface, the average distance from which to all other points on the earth’s land surfaces is a minimum. This point is defined as the earth’s geographical center. (1) Divide all the earth’s land areas into small, equal, unit areas. (2) Select one of these unit areas as a possible location of the earth’s center. (3) Measure the distance along the earth’s surface from this reference area to each of the other unit areas, all over the earth. (4) Add up all these distances and divide the total by the number of individual distances measured. The result is the average distance from the reference area to all the other unit areas around the world. (5) Repeat the entire process in steps (1) through (4) above for each one of all the other unit areas around the world. (6) Compare the "average distances" so calculated for all the different unit areas. The one for which the average distance turns out to be the smallest is the earth’s geographical center. Actually, the calculation becomes feasible only if it can be programmed on a high speed computer. To accomplish the latter requires a knowledge of spherical trigonometry, geodesy, calculus, and computer science. In addition, there must be available accurate data on the earth’s land and water areas, arranged in a grid network tied to latitude and longitude. With these factors present, the computation then becomes quite feasible. RESULTS ,,, The exact center of the earth, insofar as Mr. Woods’ calculations could determine, was found to be near Ankara, the present capital of Turkey, at latitude 39° and longitude 34°,,,, http://www.icr.org/article/50/
Now this is very interesting!,,, That the first archeological evidence for a 'advanced' human civilization, with metallurgy, wine making, agriculture, would be very near, or even at, the 'geographic center of the earth' is a very 'spooky' thing for modern science to find! Pondering all the many places where the beginning of advanced human civilization 'could have' happened, instead of where it actually 'did happen', should make any reasonable person scratch their head in wonder! But the evidence goes on JLAfan2001. From biology we find supporting evidence for a 'bottleneck' at Noah's flood:
Does human genetic evidence support Noah's flood? - Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4116168 Book Review; Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man: Excerpt: The Bible claims that there was a genetic bottleneck at the Genesis flood. Whereas all females can trace their ancestry back to Eve (through the three wives of Noah's sons), all males trace their Y-chromosomes through Noah (through his three sons). This predicted discrepancy for molecular dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data is actually seen in the scientific literature. http://www.godandscience.org/newsletters/2005-09.html The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! - Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos - August 2011 http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand; The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftwf0owpzQ Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics by Dr Robert W. Carter - 11 May 2010 Excerpt: It comes as a surprise to most people to hear that there is abundant evidence that the entire human race came from two people just a few thousand years ago (Adam and Eve), that there was a serious population crash (bottleneck) in the recent past (at the time of the Flood), and that there was a single dispersal of people across the world after that (the Tower of Babel).1 It surprises them even more to learn that much of this evidence comes from evolutionary scientists. http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics
Now JLAfan2001, I fully expect you to dismiss all this evidence with your usual wave of a hand and ad homenim attack, but, regardless, I hope others not so wedded to atheistic dogmatism/nihilism will see the evidence for a Biblical worldview is far stronger than you, and other atheists, would like to portray it to be. Verse and Music:
Matthew 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Jars Of Clay - Flood http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfAhpX_wIBk
Supplemental note: To see just how unfair and deceptive atheists can be with evaluating any biblical evidence objectively, I suggest the following fairly short talk by Dr. James White on 'Was Jesus a Myth?"
Was Jesus a Myth? - Dr. James White - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=00WOGeGcjYo#t=1951s
bornagain77_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

There's only one atheist commandment and it's probably older than the big Ten: do what thou wilt - - - such marvelous simplicity and directness - what else do we (the atheist brigade) need to get through this collision of molecules we call life?owendw_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001, you start off with the typical ad homenim against WND ICR and Answers in Genesis, ignoring the video, typical of an atheist to ignore the evidence and attack the character,, but anyways,, your first site says they never located the Wyatt's wheels yet contrary to that, I showed a video where they sent a diving camera down to the land bridge and took pictures directly of the coral encrusted remains of what looks for all intents and purposes to be the remains of a chariot wheels and chariot parts strewn across the land bridge.,,, Your second site attacks Wyatt again and ignores the subsequent work done since then. typical atheist response. The third site you reference, starts off with ad homenim and then merely scoffs at the new work and blatantly ignores the reliable historical work that went into confirming that the number of spokes on the wheels are indeed from the right time period for ancient Egypt. Typical atheist response! The forth site is of the same ad homenim incredulous nature and fails to even mention the substantive points and resorts to, you guessed it, ad homenim and scoffing to try to make its case. In brief, typical atheistic argumentation with no scientific work whatsoever! Moreover, you have completely ignored the startling work of Jim and Penny Caldwell in the video I referenced. I suggest you at least honestly address one thing I presented!:
Jim and Penny Caldwell – Mountain of God [2009] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPn_pKQt0s
The professional archeology work you ignore in your haste to attack Wyatt is certainly far stronger than you pretend it to be:
"In Extraordinary ways, modern archaeology has affirmed the historical core of the Old and New testaments - corroborating key points of the stories of Israel's patriarchs, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the life and times of Jesus." Jeffery Sheler - 'Is The Bible True', U.S. News and World Report, Oct. 25th, 1999, pg.52
But let's back up to Ron Wyatt himself JLAfan2001. I readily admit that I find, and have always found, much, though not all, of his work very questionable to believe as you do, and in fact I do not trust anything of his that is not strongly substantiated by others, but, as has become my practice in dealing with atheists who are always trying to deceive people when it comes to having any real substantiating evidence to support their position, I always try to look at the evidence itself to see what can be substantiated and what must be discarded. For instance I rejected Wyatt's claims for Noah's Ark as unsupportable very early on, but after searching around for other lines of evidence, I found much stronger lines of substantiating evidence in support of Noah's Ark, some with Chemical lab work included, such as the following video:
Arch Bonnema - (On 'Possible') Petrified Noah's Ark Remains () - video https://vimeo.com/23641811 Google map image of the Turkey-Iran border area: http://www.noahsarksearch.com/UrartuMap2.jpg
JLAfan2001, now you may say that we have no evidence whatsoever of a fairly recent, geologically speaking, catastrophic worldwide flood, but you would be wrong in that presupposition (again). Various secular sources (although Christian sources have been pointing this fact out for years) now readily admit to mounting physical evidence for vast areas of catastrophic 'mega-flooding', all across the globe, approximately 13,000 years before the present. In fact, the following video is very interesting for it shows that a geological formation that Charles Darwin himself had 'predicted' was formed 'gradually', yet it is now known that the formation was formed by a catastrophic 'mega'- flood:
Where Darwin Went Wrong - geology video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3darzVqzV2o
Many more lines of evidence for catastrophic mega-flooding have been forthcoming,,
Humanpast.net Excerpt: Worldwide, we know that the period of 14,000 to 13,000 years ago, which coincides with the peak of abundant monsoonal rains over India, was marked by violent oceanic flooding - in fact, the first of the three great episodes of global superfloods that dominated the meltdown of the Ice Age. The flooding was fed not merely by rain but by the cataclysmic synchronous collapse of large ice-masses on several different continents and by gigantic inundations of meltwater pouring down river systems into the oceans. (124) What happened, at around 13,000 years ago, was that the long period of uninterrupted warming that the world had just passed through (and that had greatly intensified, according to some studies, between 15,000 years ago and 13,000 years ago) was instantly brought to a halt - all at once, everywhere - by a global cold event known to palaeo climatologists as the 'Younger Dryas' or 'Dryas III'. In many ways mysterious and unexplained, this was an almost unbelievably fast climatic reversion - from conditions that are calculated to have been warmer and wetter than today's 13,000 years ago, to conditions that were colder and drier than those at the Last Glacial Maximum, not much more than a thousand years later. From that moment, around 12,800 years ago, it was as though an enchantment of ice had gripped the earth. In many areas that had been approaching terminal meltdown full glacial conditions were restored with breathtaking rapidity and all the gains that had been made since the LGM were simply stripped away…(124) A great, sudden extinction took place on the planet, perhaps as recently as 11,500 years ago (usually attributed to the end of that last ice age), in which hundreds of mammal and plant species disappeared from the face of the earth, driven into deep caverns and charred muck piles the world over. Modern science, with all its powers and prejudices, has been unable to adequately explain this event. (83) http://humanpast.net/environment/environment11k.htm Further assorted notes on Global Flooding 13,000 years before present: Various Catastrophic Mega-Floods 13,000 years before present from around the world https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sXjqFo9osUO4pWfxsx3Brb565KvqfVIaP1vtDGa95tg/edit
Now JLAfan2001, while the preceding is certainly very impressive as to retreat that it has forced on the atheist's notion of gradualism in geology, there are other lines of evidence that strongly reinforce the Noah account. For instance, in this following video lecture (on the 'table of nations), at around the 6:00 minute mark, we find that the first 'advanced' human civilization, (with the oldest archeological evidence of metallurgy, agriculture, wine making, etc...), flourished near, or at, the Ankara area,,,(The Ankara area is called Anatolia in the video), which is close to where Noah's Ark is said to have come to rest on a mountaintop:
Tracing your Ancestors through History - Paul James-Griffiths http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/1 Ankara Excerpt: Centrally located in Anatolia, Ankara is an important commercial and industrial city. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara related note: TABLE OF NATIONS (GENEALOGY OF MANKIND) by Tim Osterholm Excerpt: The fact is, that wherever its statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 of the Bible has been found completely accurate; resulting partly from linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and, more recently still, from the findings of physical anthropologists, who are, to this day, recovering important clues to lines of migration in ancient historic times. As implied in verse 32 of Genesis 10, this Table includes everybody; meaning that so-called fossil man, primitive peoples (ancient and modern) and modern man are all derived from Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. http://www.soundchristian.com/man/
bornagain77_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Will anyone be willing to die for an Atheist 10 commandments? Will it be so wise as to endure so long without amendment? How many moral principles will it lift from the Judeo-Christian ethic? As Atheist "morality", where it is indeed moral, tends to be parasitic, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number are plagiarized.bb_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 @ 1 We'll see if the atheist commandments mean enough to anyone to preserve and broadcast for 3,000 years. 1000 years? 100? 10? 1?bb_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Don't forget, JLAfan2001, you also have my email address which you asked for. If you want to continue any discussion, then email me.Barb_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

First of all, I'm not surprised that you would read such a "reputable" site like WND considering you quote from ICR and answers in genesis. Read it and weep.... http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm http://www.practicalbible.com/1/post/2012/06/beware-of-ron-wyatts-alleged-chariot-wheels.html http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2012/06/chariot-wheels-in-the-red-sea-hoax-persists.html http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.ca/2008/05/coming-this-fall-exodus-conspiracy-dr.html .....or deny whichever the neurons in your brain does.JLAfan2001_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

correction: even though it is staring them right at the face!.bornagain77_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

i.e. This just proves my point how atheist will flat out reject all evidence that goes against their preferred worldview even though they are it is staring them right at the face!.bornagain77_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

Hmm JLAfan2001, other than atheists claiming they are a hoax, do you have any actual physical evidence that the coral encrusted remains, which by all appearances look like chariot wheels, and parts of chariots, are not in fact chariot remains? Chariots in Red Sea: 'Irrefutable evidence' - (New video) 2012 Excerpt: “Even a novice can readily see that these are not natural coral formations,” Rood said, showing a variety of circular shapes he insists are chariot wheels, some with axles still intact. He gave special attention to a single gold-veneered, four-spoked chariot wheel that was photographed and buried in place with a marker buoy nearby. http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/chariots-in-red-sea-irrefutable-evidence/ I mean really JLAfan2001, whom am I going to believe, some internet atheists who will deny anything as long as he does not have to believe in God or my own eyes?bornagain77_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

OldArmy94 You've been reading stories that have no physical evidence to prove they happened. You've been taught to believe that they did. DonaldM Stories of myths have also been carefully preserved. The preservation of a story doesn't prove it actually happened. It was passed on for so long as part of Jewish cultural stories. Barb I realize that I have't responded to your posts because I didn't want to hijack the threads anymore than what I have. I'll have a discussion for while but then cut it off so the thread can return. BA77 That's a lot of videos and I probably won't go through them all but I can already tell that they will be bogus if you are showing anything from Ron Wyatt. He's the Kent Hovind of archeaology. A known fraud. Those chariot wheels were proven to be mistaken. This just proves my point how Christians believe anything that supports their worldview without being critical about it.JLAfan2001_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

JLAfan2001 as to: "At least their is physical proof that the atheists 10 commandments exists. There is none that the biblical commandments ever existed." ??? What say ye??? OK I can point to the 10 commandments and they physically exist and you can point to the atheist's made up commandments and they physically exist, so I don't see how you can claim that your made up commandments are more physically real than the real 10 commandments! i.e. the problem for you is to explain, without reference to mind, how the information for either came about in a purely materialistic/physical fashion. And on that score I don't see it happening for you! Premise One: No materialistic cause of specified complex information is known. Conclusion: Therefore, it must arise from some unknown materialistic cause On the other hand, Stephen Meyer describes the intelligent design argument as follows: “Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. “Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.” "Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent." (Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).) Stephen Meyer - The Scientific Basis for the Intelligent Design Inference - video http://vimeo.com/32148403 There remains one and only one type of cause that has shown itself able to create functional information like we find in cells, books and software programs -- intelligent design. We know this from our uniform experience and from the design filter -- a mathematically rigorous method of detecting design. Both yield the same answer. (William Dembski and Jonathan Witt, Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy, p. 90 (InterVarsity Press, 2010).) Is intelligent design merely an "argument from ignorance?" (Dembski's Design Filter) http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1186bornagain77_{June 7, 2013
June
06
Jun
7
07
2013
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply