Intelligent Design

A Materialist Finally Follows the Logic

Spread the love

The rather obvious point of my story Becky’s Lesson is that the typical A-Mat spewings about morality coming from societal consensus are irrational, because the “everyone thinks its OK” theory of morality can be used to justify all manner of evil.  I am always trying to get A-Mats to follow the logic of their argument to where it leads, and they almost always steadfastly refuse.  Because, by and large, A-Mats are Simpering Cowards.

But in the spirit of giving the Devil his due, I must recognize and give credit to an A-Mat who does, finally, follow his logic out to the end.  RodW is one such.  In response to my story  he wrote, “Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.”

RodW has the courage to look into the abyss, and we have to give him credit for that.  Of course, the subtext of the story is that a metaphysics that leads to a moral theory that can be used to justify genocide is incoherent and should be rejected.  Horrifyingly, instead of rejecting the metaphysics, RodW embraced its justification of genocide.

Most of the other A-Mats responded by desperately trying to change the subject.  They mostly wanted to talk about Canaan 3,000 years ago instead of Europe within living memory (CR was their bandleader).  Of course, if my moral theory had just been exposed as potentially justifying the Holocaust, I would want to change the subject too.

 

59 Replies to “A Materialist Finally Follows the Logic

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.

    And notice the sweeping generalization of “everyone”. RodW has to know that there are always exceptions to “everyone”, and that it’s sometimes OK to be the exception.

    I feel like we are arguing with a teenager, because that’s how they think. “Everyone” is doing it, so I’m doing it, too. “Everyone” usually means everyone I know who is doing it.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    Heartlander says:

    RodW: Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.

    Darwin: If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides the self-evident truth that morality must be objectively real, the Theist can now also appeal to empirical evidence to support his claim that morality is objectively real:

    Dr Suarez explains Immanuel Kant’s empirical requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid in this following video, and shows that Kant’s empirical requirement for the moral argument has now been experimentally met in quantum mechanics:

    God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum – Antoine Suarez – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk

    And in the following study the objective reality of morality is established by showing that ‘Moral evaluations of harm are quote unquote ‘instant and emotional’:

    Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012
    Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows.
    http://medicalxpress.com/news/.....brain.html

    Moreover, the following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time: Specifically, in the following study, They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared

    Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD
    Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
    http://www.quantumconsciousnes.....Flies.html

    And in the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens

    Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012)
    Excerpt: “A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can’t hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner.
    But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,,
    This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future.
    “I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,'” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....145342.htm

    Moreover, in the preceding paper one of the researchers remarked that ‘we can’t explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.’… And, exactly as she thought, quantum biological findings do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    ,,,findings in quantum biology go much further and gives us strong physical evidence that humans possess a transcendent component to their being on the molecular level that is not reducible to materialistic explanations.

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    That is to say, findings from quantum biology now give us experimental evidence strongly suggesting we do indeed have a transcendent ‘soul’ that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies just as Christians have held all along.

    Moreover, the gene expression of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic moral happiness and ‘noble’ moral happiness: The following paper states that there are hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”

    Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013
    Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,,
    The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,,
    But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers.
    Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,,
    “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....161952.htm

    Moreover, and as would be expected if morality were objectively real as Christians hold, it is now found that atheists suffer physically and mentally as a result of forsaking the objective reality of morality in general and from forsaking God in particular. Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that ‘The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.’,,, lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction…

    “I maintain that whatever else faith may be, it cannot be a delusion.
    The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally. If the findings of the huge volume of research on this topic had gone in the opposite direction and it had been found that religion damages your mental health, it would have been front-page news in every newspaper in the land.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – preface
    “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life; higher self-esteem; better adaptation to bereavement; greater social support and less loneliness; lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction… We concluded that for the vast majority of people the apparent benefits of devout belief and practice probably outweigh the risks.”
    – Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists – Is Faith Delusion?: Why religion is good for your health – page 100
    https://books.google.com/books?id=PREdCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false

    And the following meta-analysis of studies found that Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.

    Atheism and health
    A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[4][5]
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_health

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover not only do individuals suffer, but society at large also suffers when governments impose secular thinking on society. The following video goes over the devastating moral consequences for society at large when prayer was removed from public schools in America:

    The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 – David Barton – video
    (excerpted from Barton’s “America’s Godly Heritage’ lecture)
    https://youtu.be/1No–GpdqCY

    As well, besides the devastating moral impact on society at large when prayer was removed from public school, the secular mandate that only Darwinian Evolution can be taught in public schools has also had a significant detrimental moral impact for society at large. Prof. Richard Weikart states that,,, “Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence.”

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World
    Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    Hitler and Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_04-08_00

    Moreover, although all religions agree that man is morally imperfect, and all religions therefore have some method for man to try to meet some level of moral perfection, only Christianity realistically addresses the moral dilemma that man finds himself in and plainly states what should be blatantly obvious. That is to say, that no imperfect human, through his own efforts, no matter how valiant his effort may be, will ever reach heaven by his own effort. I.e. Moral perfection must be a free gift from God that is ‘imputed’ to a man. In other words, we imperfect humans must each rely on Jesus Christ to bridge that infinite moral gap between imperfect man and perfect God.

    In common language, this is known as grace. In technical theological terms, this is known as propitiation.

    Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24

    The Good-O-Meter – The Christian Message in a nutshell – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrLzYw6ULYw

    Verse:

    Ephesians 2:8
    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Supplemental video and verse:

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    John 1:29
    The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    Ok, so morality requires religion, God, and a holy book?
    Please tell me if this is not the position of the majority of posters at this strictly science site?

    Also as ID just requires a designer, and not a specific God, then the Jewish/Chrisitan God is possible as the designer?

    Right so far? But it could also be one of the Hindu Gods, Buddha, or space aliens.

    What ever! We require this ‘Designer’ (and their ‘Book’?) before we can be moral, because man is incapable of creating their own morality. Right?

    So, the clear and obvious question arises. If all these faiths, and space aliens as well, all have plainly different moral codes, which God’s (or space alien’s) morality, is ‘just the best’?

    Stop hiding your colours and being so wishy washy. Atheists are clear; morality comes from man, and yes it has changed as we learn and improve our understanding of ourselves (through science not scripture), and our environment.

    Now that RodW has been honest, I have to ask the near impossible question at this site; “Is it possible for a Christian to be honest, and say which ‘morality’ is, ‘just the best’?

  7. 7
    Barry Arrington says:

    rvb8 @6:

    Atheists are clear; morality comes from man, and yes it has changed as we learn and improve our understanding of ourselves (through science not scripture), and our environment.

    Really rv? 100 million dead in the 20th century and you say man is just getting better and better because, science. Never mind that resolving ethical questions is not within the pursue of the scientific method. How can you say science makes man “better” when here we are at the pinnacle of scientific accomplishment and instead of getting better we engaged in mass slaughter on a scale never before imagined?

    which ‘morality’ is, ‘just the best’?

    The question is meaningless, because there is only one morality.

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:

    I; ‘which “morality” is, “just the best”?’

    Barry; ‘The question is meaningless, because there is only one morality.’

    Correct Barry, there is only one morality. It is the morality written in the Koran and espoused by a billion Muslims worldwide.

    Correct Barry, there is only one morality. It is the morality of the Ten Commandments. Although those do allow for wife beating, pedophilia, slavery, genocide etc, etc.

    Try again Barry with your ‘one morality fits all nonsense’.

    One morality could fit all of course, if we removed all world religions from the mix, but the chances of that true enlightenment, given man’s iron age based morality, is next to zero.

  9. 9
    rvb8 says:

    Let’s be even more clear. Atheists believe (with evidence,eg, ‘cargo cult’, ‘scientology’, ‘Mormonism’, the most recent examples), that religions and God’s are also created by man, Zeuse, Apollo, Thor, etc.

    This being the clear case, every God ordained morality ever concieved, is really man’s conception.

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    rvb8 @ 9:

    This being the clear case,. . .

    Assume your conclusion much? Sure rvb8, if you assume in your premise that your conclusion is correct, you can get pretty much any conclusion you want. You might impress yourself, but don’t be surprised if someone who understands basic logic is not impressed. Allow me to show you what you’ve done if it is not clear:

    1. Unproven premise: God does not exist.
    2. Conclusion: God did not establish an objective morality.

    It is certainly the case that if 1 is true then 2 follows. But there is good reason to believe 1 is not true. Therefore, simply asserting it does not establish 2. Do you understand now why assuming your conclusion is a logical fallacy? It is sometimes called “begging the question.”

    Turning to your comment at 8, the fact that various people and religious leaders espouse different ethical positions does not, as you seem to believe, mean there are many different moralities. Think of it this way. What is the sum of 2 and 2? There are many wrong answers to that math question, some of which are very very wrong and some of which are only slightly wrong. But there is only one right answer.

    When you say there are many moralities because some people are wrong about, or say different things about, an ethical question, you are in the same position as someone who says there are many maths because some people are wrong about math problems.

  11. 11
    ET says:

    rvb8- If atheists had any evidence to support their position more people would be atheists. But all atheists have are mouth breathers like yourself.

  12. 12
    Nonlin.org says:

    rvb8

    Not so fast amigo. Aren’t you forgetting your own religion? As it turns out:

    Science = Observation + Assumptions, Facts Selection, Extrapolations, Interpretations…

    Assumptions, Facts Selection, Extrapolations, Interpretations… = Sum of Axiomatic Beliefs

    Sum of Axiomatic Beliefs = Religion …therefore,

    Science = Observation + Religion

    See? You can’t say you’re “with science” and “against religion”: http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/

    Also, different people just call God by different names. There are no “different gods”: http://nonlin.org/religion/

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Atheists are clear; morality comes from man

    So that means anything and everything is moral and laws are nonsense that just get in the way.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    It appears we have an evo here posting as an IDist. Anyone care to guess who it is? It’s a sock of William Spearshake, aka, jsmith (the simpering coward).

    They think if they join us they can somehow make us look bad and confused.

  15. 15
    LocalMinimum says:

    ET @ 14:

    Interesting! Wonder how they’re doing and what their strategy is? Spearshake operates as a pretty obtuse troll over on Dr. Hunter’s blog, wonder if they’re able to shed that for this infiltration?

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    The rather obvious point of my story Becky’s Lesson is that the typical A-Mat spewings about morality coming from societal consensus are irrational, because the “everyone thinks its OK” theory of morality can be used to justify all manner of evil.

    It could but how many people would choose for them and their families to be victims of a Holocaust or psychopath? In practical terms, morality is about protecting the common needs and interests of people living together in society. For example, we all want and need a secure and reliable supply of food and water, shelter against the elements, a secure and stable environment in which to raise a family and the means to provide for them. Do we really need someone or something else to tell us that it’s a good thing to respect the needs and interests of others in return for having yours respected?

    But in the spirit of giving the Devil his due, I must recognize and give credit to an A-Mat who does, finally, follow his logic out to the end. RodW is one such. In response to my story he wrote, “Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.”

    Unless, as I said in a subsequent comment, he was going to be one of the victims of the genocide.

    Most of the other A-Mats responded by desperately trying to change the subject. They mostly wanted to talk about Canaan 3,000 years ago instead of Europe within living memory (CR was their bandleader). Of course, if my moral theory had just been exposed as potentially justifying the Holocaust, I would want to change the subject too.

    It’s the same subject. That’s the point. If genocide, slavery and massacres of civilians were immoral 30 years ago then they were immoral 3000 years ago. Christians don’t get a pass on the atrocities of the Old Testament just because they claim God told them to do it.

  17. 17
    ET says:

    LocalMinimum- It could also be a lie as they are great at lying. But I would question all IPs from Canada that are not Denyse’s.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Do we really need someone or something else to tell us that it’s a good thing to respect the needs and interests of others in return for having yours respected?

    The only reason we respect anything is because that is how we were intelligently designed. If a-mats were right respect is nothing but a waste of time and space

  19. 19
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sev @ 16

    Barry: The rather obvious point of my story Becky’s Lesson is that the typical A-Mat spewings about morality coming from societal consensus are irrational, because the “everyone thinks its OK” theory of morality can be used to justify all manner of evil.

    Sev:
    It could but how many people would choose for them and their families to be victims of a Holocaust or psychopath?

    He said as if the desires of the victim were ever a factor the victimizer took into account.

    In practical terms, morality is about protecting the common needs and interests of people living together in society.

    Oh God help us. I just demonstrated that in practice where the “society makes moral rules” theory gets us is the strong prevail and the weak succumb. I don’t know why I even try. It’s like talking to a brick.

    For example, we all want and need a secure and reliable supply of food and water, shelter against the elements, a secure and stable environment in which to raise a family and the means to provide for them.

    You say that as if what “we all want” matters in a materialist morality. What matters is force. And if the strong want to kill you for no other reason than that you are a Jew, that is what they will do. Why is this so hard to understand?

    Do we really need someone or something else to tell us that it’s a good thing to respect the needs and interests of others in return for having yours respected?

    Yes, moral instruction is imperative. My two-year old would be a ruthless barbarian if I did not spend an enormous amount of time teaching him to be a good boy, and even then he wavers. Again, this is obvious. I am coming to the conclusion that to be a satisfied A-Mat requires suppressing an enormous amount of elementary truth.

    Barry: But in the spirit of giving the Devil his due, I must recognize and give credit to an A-Mat who does, finally, follow his logic out to the end. RodW is one such. In response to my story he wrote, “Well if I lived in a world where everyone thought it genocide was ok I assume I’d think it was ok too.”

    Sev: Unless, as I said in a subsequent comment, he was going to be one of the victims of the genocide.

    Did you even read the story Sev? The victims were all dead. The issue was whether that was a good thing, because everyone else in the society thought that it was. Are you going to continue to dodge and weave to avoid facing the truth?

    [The stories about the Canaanites are] the same subject.

    No, until you actually address the point I am making about the events that occurred in living memory it is nothing but an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid facing the truth through obfuscation and distraction.

  20. 20
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 3

    Besides the self-evident truth that morality must be objectively real …

    Neither self-evident nor true. An inanimate universe is incapable of moral judgements and how would those of an alien intelligence or god be anything other than their subjective views?

    As for those studies, the variation in skin conductivity in response to the photographs could be explained, at least in part, by anticipation. The value of the meta-analysis depends on the rigor with which the studies under review were conducted. Do you know if they were sound methodologically?

    Moreover, and as would be expected if morality were objectively real as Christians hold, it is now found that atheists suffer physically and mentally as a result of forsaking the objective reality of morality in general and from forsaking God in particular. Professor Andrew Sims former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that ‘The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.’,,, lower rates of depression and faster recovery from depression; lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes towards suicide; less anxiety; less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies; lower rates of alcohol and drug use and abuse; less delinquency and criminal activity; greater marital stability and satisfaction…

    Allowing, for the sake of argument, that it is true to the extent Professor Sims claims, the takeaway is that the benefits are observed from religious belief and spirituality generally. There is no endorsement of Christianity or any other specific faith. The advantageous effects could simply be the result of living within a supportive society of like-minded individuals.

  21. 21
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 4

    Moreover not only do individuals suffer, but society at large also suffers when governments impose secular thinking on society.

    And the Old Testament attests to the suffering which follows the imposition of religious belief on societies which do not choose to accept it.

    The Devastating Effects When Prayer Was Removed From School in America in 1962-63 – David Barton – video

    Barton, to put it mildly, is unreliable as an historian.

    Prayer was not removed from school in America. Students can still gather for prayers if they choose.

    What was stopped was coerced attendance at mandatory religious observances whether the student was a believer or not, which was a blatant violation of the students First Amendment rights.

    Moral perfection must be a free gift from God that is ‘imputed’ to a man. In other words, we imperfect humans must each rely on Jesus Christ to bridge that infinite moral gap between imperfect man and perfect God.

    So why not “impute” this “moral perfection” right from the start and save everyone a whole lot of time and trouble?

  22. 22
    ET says:

    What was stopped was coerced attendance at mandatory religious observances whether the student was a believer or not, which was a blatant violation of the students First Amendment rights.

    And yet evolutionism still persists in biology classrooms. Talk about a blatant violation of the students’ first amendment rights…

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, as to:

    “As for those studies, the variation in skin conductivity in response to the photographs could be explained, at least in part, by anticipation.”

    You are just grasping for straws. These studies were done in a rigorous manner so as to overcome ‘statistical’ anomalies. And specifically done in a ‘multiple repetition’ manner so as to clearly differentiate responses to emotionally neutral and highly emotional (violent, sexual….).,,, Radin’s name I recognized immediately since he is an expert (of Princeton caliber) in Bayesian and Frequentist approaches.

    As to:

    The value of the meta-analysis depends on the rigor with which the studies under review were conducted. Do you know if they were sound methodologically?

    They sure seem very much above board to me. It even seems they bent over backwards to try to include data that was non-supportive, but still came to the conclusion the anticipatory effect is real. Let the readers of UD judge for themselves on the integrity of the studies

    Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis – 2012
    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

    He is another interesting study from Cornell:

    Study showing that humans have some psychic powers caps Daryl Bem’s career
    By George Lowery | December 6, 2010
    Excerpt: It took eight years and nine experiments with more 1,000 participants, but the results offer evidence that humans have some ability to anticipate the future.

    “Of the various forms of ESP or psi, as we call it, precognition has always most intrigued me because it’s the most magical,” said Daryl Bem, professor of psychology emeritus, whose study will be published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology sometime next year.

    “It most violates our notion of how the physical world works. The phenomena of modern quantum physics are just as mind-boggling,,,,

    “Your physiology jumps when you see one of those pictures after watching a series of landscapes or neutral pictures,” Bem said. “But the remarkable finding is that your physiology jumps before the provocative picture actually appears on the screen — even before the computer decides which picture to show you. What it shows is that your physiology can anticipate an upcoming event even though your conscious self might not.”

    Bem’s nine experiments demonstrated similar unconscious influences from future events. For example, in one experiment, participants saw a list of words and were then given a test in which they tried to retype as many of the words as they could remember. Next, a computer randomly selected some of the words from the list and gave the participants practice exercises on them. When their earlier memory test results were checked, it was found that they had remembered more of the words they were to practice later than words they were not going to practice. In other words, the practice exercises had reached back in time to help them on the earlier test.

    All but one of the nine experiments confirmed the hypothesis that psi exists. The odds against the combined results being due to chance or statistical flukes are about 74 billion to 1, according to Bem.
    http://news.cornell.edu/storie.....see-future

    ,,, But what is 74 billion to 1 to a Darwinist,,, eh Seversky?? You ignore probabilities much greater than that in molecular biology all the time without even batting an eye,,, 🙂

    As to,,,

    There is no endorsement of Christianity or any other specific faith. The advantageous effects could simply be the result of living within a supportive society of like-minded individuals.

    And that is a small part of the reason why I put up the Shroud video,,, i.e. if you are going to investigate a religion because of beneficial effects it might have on the longevity of your life, I would think the religion whose central figure is claimed to have defeated death, and whose gift to mankind is ETERNAL LIFE itself, might figure VERY heavily in your investigations of various religions for their truthfulness and for their benefit on the longevity of your own personal life,,,, Cut to the chase as the saying goes,,

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    Of semi related note,, here is a Doctor’s Near Death Experience Testimony

    Mary Neals Near Death Experience YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63wY2fylJD0

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    as to 21,,,

    me: Moreover not only do individuals suffer, but society at large also suffers when governments impose secular thinking on society.

    Sev: And the Old Testament attests to the suffering which follows the imposition of religious belief on societies which do not choose to accept it.

    Besides the OLD Testament, you can also include modern examples of Islam and the particularly horrid ‘secular religion’ of Communism,,, but what you cannot include in your list is Christianity,, because Christianity has had great benefits for society whenever and wherever it has flourished:

    21 Positive Contributions Christianity Has Made Through the Centuries By D. James Kennedy (excerpted from “What if Jesus Had Never Been Born?”)
    (1) Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
    (2) Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started for Christian purposes.
    (3) Literacy and education for the masses.
    (4) Capitalism and free enterprise.
    (5) Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
    (6) The separation of political powers.
    (7) Civil liberties.
    (8) The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times.
    (9) Modern science.
    (10) The discovery of the New World by Columbus.
    (11) The elevation of women.
    (12) Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.
    (13) Higher standards of justice.
    (14) The elevation of common man.
    (15) The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and it has spared many from heartache.
    (16) High regard for human life.
    (17) The civilizing of many barbarian and primitive cultures.
    (18) The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.
    (19) Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
    (20) The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel.
    (21) The eternal salvation of countless souls.
    https://verticallivingministries.com/tag/benefits-of-christianity-to-society/

    What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?: The Impact of Jesus in the World – D. James Kennedy – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjVfEFD3v3Q

    The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success – by Rodney Stark – September 26, 2006 (Rodney Stark is a sociologist and historian of religion at Baylor University)
    Excerpt of review: Stark argues, Europe’s primacy in economic, political, and social progress was due to its embrace of Christianity, which opened a space for reason and hence science-driven technology. Emphasizing the connection between medieval scholasticism, with its notion of theological progress–the logical science of thinking one’s way closer to God–and Renaissance capitalism, Stark maintains that Christianity alone embraced reason and logic, and this gave Christian regions a tactical advantage in developing commerce.
    https://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333

    as to

    Barton, to put it mildly, is unreliable as an historian.

    Actually, I looked up Barton’s source material, and he is accurate in his assessment on the removal of prayer:

    If anyone doubts those sobering numbers cited by David Barton, here is the raw data on crime statistics for America from 1960 to 2013:

    United States Crime Rates 1960 – 2010 (Please note the skyrocketing crime rate from 1963, the year prayer was removed from school, thru 1980, the year the steep climb in crime rate finally leveled off.) of note: The slight decline in the violent crime rate at the mid 90s is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes (i.e. New York’s ‘spitting on the sidewalk’ enforcement,, etc..).
    http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

    Of related interest as to defending the integrity of David Barton’s work, David Barton defends, from several critics, his scholarship for a book he wrote suggesting Thomas Jefferson held beliefs that were far more friendly to Christianity than many historians have been portraying his beliefs to be to the general public:

    The Jefferson Lies: Taking On The Critics – David Barton – July 2012
    Excerpt: Significantly, in the chapter on Jefferson’s religious beliefs, I document that Jefferson went through several religious phases during his life. In the first half of his life, he held orthodox Christian views, and in his “Notes on Religion, 1776,” he consistently expounded what orthodox Christians still believe today. In middle life, his faith faltered when his beloved wife unexpectedly died, but he eventually retained his orthodox beliefs. But many decades later in the last years of his life, he embraced what was known as Christian Restoration or Christian Primitivism, which promoted Unitarianism and called into question some orthodox Christian doctrines, thus reversing his beliefs of earlier decades.
    But Crawford, ignoring Jefferson’s many writings documenting his changing religious phases, instead asserts that Jefferson was a Unitarian for his entire life. On what grounds does he claim this? – on the basis of any Jefferson writing? No. Rather, he says it is because “many historians believe . . .” So, like the other critics, Crawford refuses to allow Jefferson to speak for himself but instead believes that only modern academics like himself can speak for Jefferson.
    http://www.wallbuilders.com/LI.....?id=118208

    Frankly, Barton is a fairly good, if not excellent, historical scholar who gets short rift because he bucks secular myths,, (which should not be surprising for anyone in the ID community)

    as to:

    Prayer was not removed from school in America. Students can still gather for prayers if they choose.

    What was stopped was coerced attendance at mandatory religious observances whether the student was a believer or not, which was a blatant violation of the students First Amendment rights.

    Actually the removal of prayer from public classrooms was predicated on a lie,

    Atheists like to claim that the removal of prayer from school was necessary because of the ‘separation of church and state’ clause that is in the constitution. That claim, like everything else within the atheistic worldview, is based on a lie. The fact of the matter is that the term ‘separation of church and state’ is nowhere to be found in the constitution, but was instead lifted from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptist minister assuring him that the state would never impose its mandates on his religious freedoms. i.e. The term ‘separation of church and state’ was used in the context of saying the church was completely protected from government intrusions, not the other way around.

    Basically the term ‘separation of church and state’ was twisted 180 degrees out of its original context in order for atheists to try to justify their claim that the constitution mandates a secular worldview. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jefferson, the supposed atheists’s darling of secularism, himself used federal money for ‘church planting’.

    Imagine if a Republican President tried such ‘church planting’ today. I imagine Atheists would have an absolute fit and demand that the atheistic leaning Democrats try to impeach the president! (Although I am quite sure that atheists are very comfortable with the Democratic Presidents who have demanded we spend Billions of dollars for abortion subsidies here and in other nations)

    As to:

    So why not “impute” this “moral perfection” right from the start and save everyone a whole lot of time and trouble?

    Well, here is one reason: “if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise.”

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion
    I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
    The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
    As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    To second ET’s comment at 22: For purposes of the law, Atheism is considered a religion in America

    Atheism and the Law – Matt Dillahunty
    Excerpt: “… whether atheism is a ‘religion’ for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.” “Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion.”
    “We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) (‘If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.’)”
    “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions”
    http://www.atheist-community.o.....php?id=742

    Southwestern University Law Review: DEALING WITH THE ENTANGLEMENT OF RELIGION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IN AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
    Excerpt: But each time we present a theory of life’s origin to our schoolchildren, we are showing preference. And by actually looking at the theories and what they represent, as well as looking at what religion provides for people, we can see that the government, even in limiting the teaching to only evolution, is endorsing a religious ideology. A message exists behind this endorsement – the same message people feared would exist if we allowed schools to teach biblical creationism theories or even intelligent design theory. The message itself is an endorsement. Accordingly, the government is endorsing a particular religious belief – the belief that no supernatural being exists. In effect, this endorsement not only advances that particular religious belief and inhibits other religious beliefs, but also it shows an utter failure of maintaining the government’s requisite neutrality involving religion and the government.
    https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doc

    In Court Rulings on Teaching Origins Science, Law Review Article Finds a Double Standard – Sarah Chaffee – May 6, 2016
    Excerpt: In a newly published law review article, “Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools,” attorney and former Discovery Institute research coordinator Casey Luskin examines the way courts have struck down the teaching of alternatives to evolution because of their historical associations with religion. At the same time, he notes that courts typically ignore anti-religious historical associations with Darwinism.
    As Luskin documents, these associations are prevalent and well known. The result is a double standard, as courts hold alternatives to evolution unconstitutional to teach, but evolution constitutional.
    Luskin notes that the solution to this problem is not removing evolution from schools. He vigorously opposes having evolution declared unconstitutional. Instead, he argues that religious associations of scientific views on origins science should not be constitutionally fatal, but rather should be considered an “incidental effect.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02826.html

    On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits – September 2011
    Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
    *ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....50451.html

  26. 26
    rvb8 says:

    ET @22,

    Prayer and worship have not been barred, merely tax payer fuded worship.

    You know (I hope), that if a student in a public school found Evolution offensive, or being against their faith, then the state system allows them to opt out.

    Where were the ‘opt-out’ options for students in the 50s?
    Personally I would opt-out of all declarations, statements, or avowels in the US, if they included that absurd phrase, ‘Under God.’ These are plainly un-Constitutional. After all the public schools get tax payer funds to support Christianity.

    This is plainly unethical, and immoral, as it is using deceipt, and deceitful methods to missappropriate government funds.

  27. 27
    critical rationalist says:

    @Barry

    Most of the other A-Mats responded by desperately trying to change the subject. They mostly wanted to talk about Canaan 3,000 years ago instead of Europe within living memory (CR was their bandleader).

    Is this supposed to be some kind of argument?

    I mean, if I take that seriously, are you really suggesting if we lived 3,000 years in the future, and no one was alive who experienced it, the Holocaust would it be OK too?

  28. 28
    Marfin says:

    RVB8-I have asked this of you before , if everything in this world is a product of evolution which in mankinds case includes our eyes, arms, legs , brains, thoughts, actions,
    then which of are actions are moral/good and which are immoral/bad.As far as I am aware evolution only works on a survival basis , so anything not beneficial to our survival will not last, so murder, rape, genocide, hate are all still around so why are these things immoral/bad , from an evolutionary standpoint.I await your great scientific reasoning.

  29. 29
    Origenes says:

    CR: I mean, if I take that seriously, are you really suggesting if we lived 3,000 years in the future, and no one was alive who experienced it, the Holocaust would it be OK too?

    Nothing in Barry’s writings justifies CR’s question. Then again, CR is against ‘justificationism’ so he can say whatever he wants for no reason at all.

  30. 30
    Origenes says:

    Rvb8: Atheists are clear; morality comes from man …

    Atheists materialists are clear about the following also: the brain dictates human behavior.
    But how does the brain adapt to new moral behavior? How can the brain rewire itself in order to comply with new consensual moral rules? How are new consensual moral laws translated into brain chemistry and consequently translated into new behavior which is in line with those new consensual moral rules?
    How does brain chemistry program itself to be in line with society?

  31. 31
    Barry Arrington says:

    CR @ 27:

    Is this supposed to be some kind of argument?

    Of course not CR. Read it again, this time for comprehension. I am not arguing. I am pointing out that you want to change the subject because you are too cowardly to address the argument I made other than with childish “what about-ism.”

  32. 32
    asauber says:

    morality comes from man

    Ahhh… personal preference repackaged as “morality”.

    I see what you Atheists did there.

    Andrew

  33. 33
    ET says:

    rvb8- Blind watchmaker evolution is bogus and should never be taught anywhere. You guys can’t even test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution. So by teaching it there is a huge disservice to kids of all ages.

    Talk about the misuse and abuse of government funds…

  34. 34
    LocalMinimum says:

    In practical terms, morality is about protecting the common needs and interests of people living together in society. For example, we all want and need a secure and reliable supply of food and water, shelter against the elements, a secure and stable environment in which to raise a family and the means to provide for them. Do we really need someone or something else to tell us that it’s a good thing to respect the needs and interests of others in return for having yours respected?

    Here you seem to be presenting an objective basis of morality, I’m assuming based on its survival value within a Darwinian hypothetical frame of reference.

    bornagain77 @ 3

    Besides the self-evident truth that morality must be objectively real …

    Neither self-evident nor true. An inanimate universe is incapable of moral judgements and how would those of an alien intelligence or god be anything other than their subjective views?

    And here you dispute BA’s claim to objective morality, as delivered by a higher intelligence.

    This is an apparent contradiction.

    In the first example, you make the inherent claim that you, with a critter’s intellect, can understand, develop, and communicate an objective sense of morality, even if it boils down to “do for you and yours”.

    Why couldn’t a greater intelligence, with a greater perspective and superior computational resources/processes, offer a superior and more universal “do for you and yours” ethical system? Say, something more comparatively national than tribal, with the scale emergent issues worked out?

  35. 35
    LocalMinimum says:

    Seversky @ 16:

    It could but how many people would choose for them and their families to be victims of a Holocaust or psychopath? In practical terms, morality is about protecting the common needs and interests of people living together in society.

    Choosing to work with the Holocaust or psychopath is often the most immediate means of avoiding becoming a victim. Should one sacrifice oneself for some expectation contrary to the societal norm for the greater part’s survival, when the value of one’s sacrifice cannot be evaluated? What if the majority understanding is that the Holocaust or psychopath was by far the best means to the greater part’s survival?

  36. 36
    critical rationalist says:

    @Barry

    CR: Is this supposed to be some kind of argument?

    BA: Of course not CR. Read it again, this time for comprehension. I am not arguing.

    It’s not? Then how does “living memory” make the Holocaust any worse, or a 3,000 years old command to slaughter Cannonite women and children any better? Why mention it at all?

    I am pointing out that you want to change the subject because you are too cowardly to address the argument I made other than with childish “what about-ism.”

    Again, your assuming the story represents two different viewpoints. I’m saying that, on closer inspection, they actually share the same underlying philosophical position. Both are justificationists arguing over which “final solution” is authoritative. That’s not “what about-ism.” That’s pointing out a similarity you’ve failed to identify that was in this comment.

  37. 37
    Origenes says:

    CR: I’m saying that, on closer inspection, they actually share the same underlying philosophical position. Both are justificationists arguing over which “final solution” is authoritative.

    So, after closer inspection, you conclude that both viewpoints are justificationistic …. and you justify your (justificationistic) conclusion by pointing out that on both sides there are “justificationists arguing over which ‘final solution’ is authoritative.”

    So, CR, you are a justificationist. Do I understand you correctly? Or am I mistaken and did you not arrive at your conclusion by justificationistic means?

  38. 38

    There is no such thing as moral progress in the a/mat faith. There is only moral change that is good to some and bad to others. Those who like the change call it progress. Those who dislike the change call it regress.

    Also, this world is as full of hate, vengeance, and hypocrisy as it ever was. The United States, in particular, is ripe for a very bloody civil war. The hatred between the two largest political groups (each numbering in the tens of millions) is at powderkeg levels.

    Adding fuel to the fire, much of the corporate news media no longer even pretend to be objective news reporting services, choosing instead to embrace a partisan role that favors one political group over the other.

  39. 39

    Origenes @ 37: Checkmate!

  40. 40

    LM @ 35: “Choosing to work with the Holocaust or psychopath is often the most immediate means of avoiding becoming a victim. Should one sacrifice oneself for some expectation contrary to the societal norm for the greater part’s survival, when the value of one’s sacrifice cannot be evaluated? What if the majority understanding is that the Holocaust or psychopath was by far the best means to the greater part’s survival?”

    Spot on!

  41. 41
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 23

    All but one of the nine experiments confirmed the hypothesis that psi exists. The odds against the combined results being due to chance or statistical flukes are about 74 billion to 1, according to Bem.
    http://news.cornell.edu/storie…..see-future

    ,,, But what is 74 billion to 1 to a Darwinist,,, eh Seversky?? You ignore probabilities much greater than that in molecular biology all the time without even batting an eye,,, ????

    And you ignore the criticisms of his methodological and statistical rigor and that attempts to replicate some of his experiments have found no effect.

    You also ignore the fact that he admitted to a lack of rigor in a Slate Magzine article in 2017:

    I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?’

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Wasn’t there just an article about many peer-reviewed articles lacking rigor and cannot be replicated?

  43. 43
  44. 44
    Seversky says:

    bornagain77 @ 24

    Actually, I looked up Barton’s source material, and he is accurate in his assessment on the removal of prayer:

    If anyone doubts those sobering numbers cited by David Barton, here is the raw data on crime statistics for America from 1960 to 2013:

    Out of interest I looked up the statistics for homicide from 1950 – 2014.

    They ticked along at between 4.0 and 5.1 per 100 000 from 1950 to 1965 They began to increase slowly until they peaked at 10.2 per 100 000 in 1980. Thereafter, they began to fall back until by 2013 and 2014 they were back at 4.5 per 100 000. And public prayer hasn’t been restored to the schools as far as I’m aware.

    All Barton can show at best is a correlation. To show that the rise in crime could only be attributed to the banning of state-sponsored prayer in public schools, he would have to exclude all the myriad other economic, social and political factors that could also have been responsible. And that he has not done and probably cannot do.

    Frankly, Barton is a fairly good, if not excellent, historical scholar who gets short rift because he bucks secular myths,, (which should not be surprising for anyone in the ID community)

    David Barton is notorious for having claimed to have an earned degree when his PhD was actually awarded by an unaccredited diploma mill, Christian Life University which, strangely enough for a university, is registered with the IRS a a church.

    He is also notorious for having attributed a number of quotes to prominent historical figures such as various Founding Fathers which no one else could find and which he eventually was forced to concede were either fake or “unconfirmed”.

    No reputable, professional historian would lay claim to a degree he or she had not earned, neither would they risk their scholastic reputations by inventing fake quotes wholesale. Barton is neither reputable nor reliable.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    Just wondering- are there any credible a-mats?

  46. 46
    Allan Keith says:

    There are also correlations between lead water pipes in cities and violence.

    https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbaum_muller_lead_crime.pdf

    And leaded gasoline and violence.

    http://hisscienceistootight.bl.....e-and.html

    But these correlations have been soundly trashed as causal relations. As has the relationship between prayer in school and violence.

  47. 47
    ET says:

    There isn’t any doubt that teaching kids that they are the result of purposeless processes had some effect to spawn the violence we are observing

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 41, thanks for the Slate article. I was unaware of the backlash from agnostics and atheists.

    You mention this comment from the article,,,

    I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?’

    But fail to mention this comment

    In that paper, he actively encouraged replication in a way that no one ever does. He said, ‘This is an extraordinary claim, so we need to be open with our procedures.’

    In fact the word ‘replication’ was used numerous times in his paper in his desire to have the field opened up.

    It is not that he was trying to ‘pull the wool’ over anyone’s eyes, it is that he was trying to open the field up to investigation.

    In fact, in the following interview we find,,

    The reason I use unselected college students is because I want to encourage other people to replicate it. If I were just using the top 1% of psi-talented people in the country, my colleagues in mainstream psychology would not be able to try to replicate it.
    https://skeptiko.com/daryl-bem-responds-to-parapsychology-debunkers/

    Unsurprisingly, dishonest researcher bias from skeptics was found in the people who didn’t want ESP to be real. From the same interview we find:

    Dr. Daryl Bem:,,, Without accusing him of actually being dishonest, he has now published the three studies that he and French and Ritchie tried to get published in several journals that rejected it.,,,
    ,,, they knew that there were three other studies that had been submitted and completed and two of the three showed statistically significant results replicating my results. But you don’t know that from reading his article. That borders on dishonesty.,,,
    Dr. Daryl Bem: Yeah. Skeptics are quick to jump on it and say, “Well then what you’re saying is no one else who doesn’t believe it already can replicate it.” And that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we need to incorporate the experimenters’ attitudes and expectations as variables in our attempts to replicate.,,,
    https://skeptiko.com/daryl-bem-responds-to-parapsychology-debunkers/

    The point being is that his research has not been debunked,,, has been replicated in some experiments. And, as usual in dealing with Darwinian Atheists, there are serious reasons to be skeptical of the supposed skeptics who supposedly debunked his research.

    Moreover and most importantly, I do not have to rely solely on such sensitive psychological experiments, that are so prone to bias, to support the reality of the immaterial mind. I can appeal to our very best science from quantum mechanics, where researcher bias is all but rendered null and void, to show experimental evidence from physics that VERY strongly supports the reality of the immaterial Mind.

    In fact, Albert Einstein himself was, embarrassing so, shown to be completely wrong, by advances in Quantum Mechanics, in his presupposition that the subjective ‘experience of the now’, (and free will), would never be a part of experimental physics:

    Albert Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics and His Own Mind – video (corrected volume)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxFFtZ301j4

    In fact, I can now also appeal to advances in quantum biology to, #1, debunk the entire reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, and #2, to very strongly support the Christian’s position that we do indeed have a transcendent soul/mind that is capable of living beyond the deaths of out material body.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – video
    https://youtu.be/LHdD2Am1g5Y

    Thus in conclusion Seversky, as usual, your supposed rebuttal is found to come up short of what you were trying to portray. Moreover, with your reductive materialistic framework, you are now found to not even be in the right theoretical ballpark to begin with by advances in quantum biology.

    A Darwinist being upstaged by advances in experimental science? Go figure. Who would have ever thought such a thing was possible? It is almost as if Darwinian evolution never qualified as testable science to begin with,, 🙂

    Darwinian Evolution: A Pseudoscience based on Unrestrained Imagination and Bad Liberal Theology – video
    https://youtu.be/KeDi6gUMQJQ

  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 44, in your attempted rebuttal of the crime/socio-demographic statistics cited by Barton, you focus in on ‘homicide’. I noted the decline in violent crimes and attributed it, in large part, to tougher policing,,,

    specifically I stated,,

    “The decline in the violent crime rate (beginning) at the mid 90s is attributed in large part to tougher enforcement on minor crimes (i.e. New York’s ‘spitting on the sidewalk’ enforcement,, etc..).”

    for instance,,,

    During the 1990s, crime rates in New York City dropped dramatically, even more than in the United States as a whole. Violent crime declined by more than 56 percent in the City, compared to about 28 percent in the nation as whole. Property crimes tumbled by about 65 percent, but fell only 26 percent nationally.
    Many attribute New York’s crime reduction to specific “get-tough” policies carried out by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s administration. The most prominent of his policy changes was the aggressive policing of lower-level crimes, a policy which has been dubbed the “broken windows” approach to law enforcement. In this view, small disorders lead to larger ones and perhaps even to crime. As Mr. Guiliani told the press in 1998, “Obviously murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes. But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”,,
    The contribution of such deterrence measures (the “stick”) offers more explanation for the decline in New York City crime than the improvement in the economy, the authors conclude. Between 1990 and 1999, homicide dropped 73 percent, burglary 66 percent, assault 40 percent, robbery 67 percent, and vehicle hoists 73 percent.

    Thus, the decline was wrought, in large part, by what was in essence an overall ‘loss of freedom’ from what we had previously known when prayer was in school.

    Might I suggest that such a ‘get tough’ policy on lower level offences might stop many of our inner cities from being veritable war zones as they are now?

    The 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US
    Nov 13, 2017
    Despite a 20-year downward trend for violent crime in the U.S., murder rates have gone up in the past two years. Here’s a look at the cities that currently have the highest murder rates in the country.

    #30. Waco, Texas
    Murder rate per 100k people: 16.74

    Number of reported murders (2015): 22

    Population: 131,413,,,,

    —-

    #1. St. Louis, Missouri
    Murder rate per 100k people: 59.29

    Number of reported murders (2015): 188

    Population: 317,095
    http://rapidcityjournal.com/ne.....e3d.html#1

    Please note that New York city is no longer on the list as the quote unquote ‘murder capital of America’ as it was once popularly known as back in the late 80’s during the crack epidemic,,,

    Violent crime in New York City has been dropping since the mid-1990s[1] and, as of 2017, is the lowest of any major city in the United States. In 2017, there were 290 homicides, the lowest number since the 1940s.[2]

    Crime rates spiked in the 1980s and early 1990s as the crack epidemic hit the city.[3][4] According to a 2015 ranking of 50 cities by The Economist, New York was the 10th-overall-safest major city in the world, as well as the 28th-safest in personal safety.[5]

    During the 1990s the New York City Police Department (NYPD) adopted CompStat, broken windows policing and other strategies in a major effort to reduce crime. The city’s dramatic drop in crime has been attributed by criminologists to policing tactics, the end of the crack epidemic,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

    Moreover Seversky, as should be needless to say, you overlooked many other areas that Barton covered, to focus in on homicide, which I had already conceded had declined, in large part, due to ‘get tough’ policing.

    The other areas you did not focus in on, such as unwed motherhood, and even SAT’s in public schools,, etc..,,, which no one disputes are currently major social problems in America, are a huge overlooked elephant in the room in your attempted rebuttal of the statistics that Barton cited.

    As to Barton’s overall “lack of scholarship’ on Jefferson and history generally, I reluctantly have to agree with you that he is not a reliable source on Jefferson, or America’s history in general, and thus I also have to thank you for bringing such lack of rigor on Barton’s part to my attention. ,,, Apparently, miracles do happen Seversky. You were finally found to be correct on a topic you challenged me on! 🙂

    ,,, That being said, I stand by the crime/socio-demographic statistics originally cited by Barton since they are a data point that is readily available for anyone to see apart from any bias that Barton’s own analysis of them may have imparted to them..
    i.e. In this area of prayer in school, Barton is on far stronger footing for his claims than he is on in his claims for American history generally!

    Here is a trusted rebuttal of Barton’s scholarship on Jefferson

    Barton is right. The founders of the American Bible Society were an impressive bunch. But if these men were alive today they would be shocked, if not appalled, to learn that David Barton, the country’s most prominent defender of the Christian republic they hoped to construct, is now singing the praises of Thomas Jefferson. Boudinot, Jay, Cone, Day, and the other ABS builders of a Christian America (we can also add Francis Scott Key and John Quincy Adams, and John Marshall to that group) were engaged in an early 19th-century culture war for the soul of the new nation against a group of skeptical intellectuals that embraced and promoted a secular vision of America’s future.

    By defending Thomas Jefferson, David Barton has dishonored their memory.
    – John Fea
    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/161878
    John Fea teaches American history and chairs the History Department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. He is the author of The Bible Cause: A History of the American Bible Society (Oxford University Press, 2016) and blogs daily at http://www.thewayofimprovement.com

    Thanks again for pointing this out Seversky!

  50. 50
    J-Mac says:

    In regards to Becky’s Lesson…

    I’m just wondering where Christianity would be, if the Nazis had REALLY won the war?

    There is no doubt that the great majority of Christian Churches supported Hitler and turned the blind eye to the systematic killing of Jews, which many historians and Jewish leaders themselves acknowledged was motivated by churchs’ religious prejudices dating back to the death of Jesus Christ…

    My question is: How Barry and others can be so certain that if Nazis had won the war, the Christianity would call the holocaust evil? What evidence do they have that it would support that claim?

    Just because Nazis lost the war and Christian Churches were sort of forced to acknowledge that they had turned the blind eye to extermination of the Jews doesn’t breath a lot of confidence into Barry’s others’ claims that holocaust would be viewed as evil because it is viewed as such today…
    Why did it take the Churches 50-60 years after the war to acknowledge what should have been acknowledged right after Nazis lost the war?

    I don’t think Barry’s argument carries a lot of weight because we are NOW faced with the facts that Churches finally acknowledged that holocaust was evil…

  51. 51
    asauber says:

    Churches finally acknowledged that holocaust was evil…

    So who was doing all the acknowledging that the holocaust was evil during the events in question and up till now, since we know it wasn’t “churches”?

    I have a guess…

    Andrew

  52. 52
    asauber says:

    See, what Atheists try to do is try to appear to be better moralists than Christians, even though Atheists have no moral code they can reference. They have the shifting sands of grouppopthought to stand on.

    This is how pathetic their position is.

    Andrew

  53. 53
    J-Mac says:

    @Andrew,

    So who was doing all the acknowledging that the holocaust was evil during the events in question and up till now, since we know it wasn’t “churches”?

    I have a guess…

    It doesn’t matter who else is acknowledging it now…The problem is now and was clear when Nazis were in power: The churches didn’t acknowledge it when they had an opportunity to do so voluntarily…

    Forced acknowledgments make Barry Arrington’s argument clearly pointless or false…

  54. 54
    asauber says:

    “It doesn’t matter who else is acknowledging it now”

    J-Mac,

    That’s wasn’t my question.

    My question Part A was:

    “So who was doing all the acknowledging that the holocaust was evil during the events in question (the holocaust itself)”

    That’s when it really mattered, don’t you think?

    Andrew

  55. 55
    asauber says:

    “On December 17, 1942, the Allies issued a proclamation condemning the “extermination” of the Jewish people in Europe and declared that they would punish the perpetrators. Notwithstanding this, it remains unclear to what extent Allied and neutral leaders understood the full import of their information. The utter shock of senior Allied commanders who liberated camps at the end of the war may indicate that this understanding was not complete.”

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar.....-holocaust

    Andrew

  56. 56
    asauber says:

    And let us not forget who perpetrated the Holocaust.

    It was a national political party/state, not a church.

    Andrew

  57. 57
    asauber says:

    And it was a political party/state likely full off all the latest and greatest progressive thought.

    Andrew

  58. 58
    Trumper says:

    @J Mac #50 – You wonder “where Christianity would be, if the Nazis had REALLY won the war?”
    probably about the same place they were during the war…fighting and resisting the evil of Hitler as many other countries were doing: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005185

    Certainly there were (and still are) many hurdles in the minds of many about the Jews and their responsibility of the Christs sacrifice. yet there were clear efforts made to thwart Hitler: “The Church, under the Pope’s guidance, had already saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined…” Wiki and Pope Pius XII.

    So… if during the conflict there were clear and concise efforts to thwart Hitlers hate…. then one should logically conclude the answer to which one like you hypothetically is asking…. makes sense but sometimes sense is not so common.

  59. 59
    Belfast says:

    Philosophical questions attract mental midgets.

Leave a Reply