William J Murray

One of the recurring themes on this blog is moral subjectivism vs moral objectivism. Subjectivists argue that morals are fundamentally subjective in nature – akin to personal preferences, although very strongly felt. Let us agree for the sake of argument that they are not the same as simple preferences like flavors or fashion or colors and exclude that comparison from the conversation. All perceptions of any kind are acquired and processed subjectively. That’s not the question; the question is whether or not it is better, more logical, or even necessary to think and act as if what one is referring to is objective in nature. Even though we all perceive what we call the “outside” world subjectively, I’m sure we’d Read More ›

In debate after debate I’m sure we’ve all noticed that some people continually recycle the same statements over and over as if those statements represent something more than emotion-laden rhetoric that hasn’t already been factually and logically refuted or otherwise sufficiently responded to.  While this is hardly surprising, what has piqued my interest are discussions involving the election of Donald J. Trump and abortion, I suppose because those subjects carry a great deal of emotional weight for many people. I think the reaction to these subjects reveals something extremely interesting and dangerous to society. I’m not just talking about atheists/materialists here, but people in general. In every single discussion I had with anyone not supporting Trump, their reaction to Trump Read More ›

Wikipedia: In political jargon, a useful idiot is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause. In KF’s expose on agit-prop history and techniques, rvb8 attempts to draw an equivalence between what the progressive left is doing in taking to the streets in “protest”, and KF’s stated views and groups that advocate for those views. He asks: You see, I fail to see why the Soviet agit-prop is wrong, and your own right. I know your ‘right’ is self evident, but not to me, and not to millions like me; what in your opinion is to be done with mine, Read More ›

It is often a claim of atheists/naturalists that certain individuals, groups or positions are “anti-science”. There is a narrative now that the Trump administration is “anti-science” because Trump and certain cabinet nominees do not subscribe to certain so-called “scientific” views, such as AGW or certain evolutionary claims, and do not intend to set policy according to certain views held by many scientists. I doubt anyone except perhaps actual Luddites are “anti-science” in any truthful interpretation of the word. Trump and his entire team, ID advocates and Christians of virtually every kind embrace science and use technology. Christians basically invented science and made most of the great scientific discoveries in history, whether or not those discoveries coincided with their religious views Read More ›

1. Climate Alarmism – why do Atheists/Materialists think they can recognize and understand true climate facts and extrapolate them into valid theories about the future of Earth’s climate? Do they not realize all of their mental processes have no top-down, supernatural control/override authority? They think whatever happenstance chemical interactions cause them to think, and believe whatever chance forces cause them to believe. Under such a paradigm, they believe what they do about the climate for exactly the same reason non-believers hold their non-alarmist views: chemical interactions have caused such beliefs. “Facts” and “truths” are nothing more than sensations that unintelligent, undirected physical processes cause us to attach to particular thoughts. They might eat some particular ingredient or smell something and Read More ›

  I understand if Mr. Arrington needs to remove this post. I’ve done what I needed to do here. Thanks. [post removed] Barry:  Thank you for your understanding WJM.  This is not our focus here.

It is the common, uninformed and apparently biased expression of many anti-ID advocates that “science” makes all sorts of discoveries and advances, while Intelligent Design makes none.  This is claimed as if science and ID are two entirely different things. Although not under the specific label of “Intelligent Design”, the inventors of modern science believed in an orderly universe created for a purpose by an intelligent, rational creator.  Science is a methodology that relies upon several metaphysical assumptions that reflect the views of those who created it, even though the are unspoken, unrecognized by many, and often even denied.  Johann Kepler considered the scientific process the act of “thinking God’s thoughts after him” by uncovering both the systems of the Read More ›

rvb8, one of our regular self-described atheistic materialists, makes some pretty interesting assertions, considering he admits he is not a scientist: That is where you stumble, because chance and the interaction of forces and matter can explain it. I’m with Mr Dawkins there; 99% sure, and am quite happy for you to build faith upon the remaining 1%. the building blocks of life came from the first stars, and continue to be produced by Super Novas, and are ubiquitous throughout the universe. The energy required to start this process of trial and error combinations of these chemicals and water, came from the sun, the heat of the earth, impacting astroids, electrical storms etc Wikipedia has an excellent article on Miller/Urey. Read More ›

In another thread, I asked daveS why he was an atheist. He responded: The proposition “there is no god” also appears to me to be consistent with what I observe in the world. When asked what that meant, he expanded: Well, I don’t know of any inconsistencies between this proposition and my observations. For example, I’m not aware of a god blatantly intervening in the world, as some people say happens. I’ve addressed this in the other thread, but this comment is reflective of what a lot of atheists say is a convincing lack of evidence for god: the supposed lack of observed miracles. Atheists think we live in a world that looks like a world without a god. Of course, that’s Read More ›

At comment 60 in this thread about self-described atheistic materialists who want portray themselves as being moral yet having no basis by which to be moral in any objective sense, Seversky says in response: “However, it is a choice between able to be good in a way that actually means something and actually matters,…” to whom? That’s always the unspoken part of such a claim. Meaning only exists in the mind of the beholder and something or some one only matters to some one. Believers fell better if they believe that their lives have meaning and matter, which means they need a Creator to whom they matter. Notice that, according to Seversky, meaning is an entirely subective pheonomena. IOW, in Read More ›

I would bet my bottom dollar that most atheists active on or reading this site are very moral, good people. In fact, I would bet that rvb8, Pindi and seversky are better (morally speaking) people than I am. I would further make a bet that part of the very reason they embrace atheism is because they consider the type of “god” they have had exposure to in church or in their community would be, if it actually existed according to what they’ve been exposed to as far as religious teachings, an absurdly evil being not worthy of belief, much less worship. I would agree with them on this point – the god I perceived being taught to me in Sunday Read More ›

Imagine if atheistic materialism was actually true and humans are nothing more than biological automatons – complexly programmed and reactive robots that behave and think in whatever manner happenstance chemical interactions dictates at any given time.  Let’s think about what would actually mean. There would be no way for a biological automaton to determine whether or not any statement was in fact true or not since all conclusions are driven by chemistry and not metaphysical “truth” values; indeed, a biological automaton reaches conclusion X for exactly the same reason any other reaches conclusion Y; chemistry.  If chemistry dictates that 1+1=banana, that is what a “person” will conclude. If chemistry dictates they defend that view to the death and see themselves Read More ›

Probably one of the most daunting aspects of carrying on debates either about proper critical thinking, theism vs atheism, or intelligent design and its implications is the seeming implacable nature of those we debate here and elsewhere. It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors; however, I think this is probably because most of those who will take the time to seek our position out and criticize it on its home turf are already fully committed against such positions, and are often emotionally entrenched. Not only has my time here at UD aided in my personal transition from atheist to theist, I’d like to let the Read More ›

In another thread, Seversky complains: And it’s irrational nonsense to deny that much of who and what you are was determined by past events of which you were unaware and over which you had no control. What you inherited from your parent’s genes and the formative influences of childhood and adolescence means you, like everyone else, are a product of history. You can’t change that so the question becomes, to what extent can you be said to have free will. Seversky makes an argument based on false assumptions and misrepresentations that don’t characterize either side of the argument properly. He is simply attempting to word-smith a collection of phrases (like so many other physicalists here) that build nothing more than Read More ›

I’m going to lay out three basic arguments for belief in the supernatural. First, science itself would not be possible were it not for the effects of unseen, higher-order supernatural causes. Second, science and rational debate would not be possible unless we all have faith in the supernatural – unseen spirits not bound to material causes. Third, each of us has direct personal experience of the supernatural every waking second of every day. Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil. unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, Read More ›