academic freedom Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design

Bill Dembski on censorship of books at Amazon

Spread the love

You think you’re free to read what you want? Think again:

Three days ago on this forum, I raised the question how long would it be before Amazon, which has now started banning videos skeptical of vaccines, starts banning books. I thought books would be safer.

But no. Tommy Robinson’s book Mohammed’s Koran has now been banned on Amazon. For the story, see here. For the Tommy Robinson page at Amazon showing that the book has indeed been removed (proof by absence), see here.

Barnes and Noble has likewise removed it.

Bill Dembski, “Censorship of Books at Amazon” at billdembski.com

The Big Shuddup was bound to happen in monopoly markets. It is much easier to stop a single leak than hundreds of them.

One naturally hopes it won’t spread to ID or whatever we want to read or watch but who knows? Today, for those in power, the big thing is not to win a debate but stop it from happening.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

54 Replies to “Bill Dembski on censorship of books at Amazon

  1. 1
    ET says:

    Businesses are free to sell what they want to sell. Perhaps this publicity will help the book’s sales.

  2. 2
    Mark from CO says:

    No ET, business are not free to sell what they want to sell. Supreme Court has been very clear that if you are in business in the US, you must sell to those who you may not agree with. While the circumstances may be slightly different, the principle is the same with Amazon. It will be interesting to see if progressives are willing to be held to the same standard as what they hold others to.

  3. 3
    es58 says:

    What % of book market does Amazon have? Is there a case for anti trust?

  4. 4
    Bob O'H says:

    I hope you do know who Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, err, Tommy Robinson, is. Basically, a violent racist and criminal. I think ID will be safe as long as it doesn’t become nasty and support violence and hate speech.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    I never heard of Robinson before, but it appears that even wikipedia paints a more balanced, nuanced. treatment of Robinson than Bob (and weave) O’Hara does with his broad brush condemnation of the whole man:

    “Robinson denies racism and antisemitism,[33] and has declared his support for the Jewish people and Israel, calling himself a Zionist.[34] Robinson has said that his group of friends includes black and Muslim people.[33][35]”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Biography

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob states

    “I think ID will be safe as long as it doesn’t become nasty and support violence and hate speech.”

    Hmmm? Interesting comment, especially considering the overall hateful behavior of Darwinian trolls in public and the violent history of the Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ philosophy in general, as well as the on going concerted effort to silence ID proponents with censorship by Darwinists.

    Darwinists protesting too much (Over “Darwin’s Doubt) – Telling signs of a worldview in trouble – By Subby Szterszky | July 23, 2013
    Excerpt: “Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard.”
    http://www.focusinsights.org/a.....g-too-much

    Update per Nancy Percy: The microbiologist, Kas Thomas, who wrote the article expressing doubts about Darwinian theory (posted below) is shocked, shocked that he is being vilified by Darwinists: ” I am not a creationist, and yet now I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of scorn born of dogma — scientific dogma. I don’t know why it should surprise me to find there are bullies on all sides of this issue. Until now, I stupidly thought scientific minds were more tolerant and less bullying than religious thinkers. The comments here show the truth. There are closed-minded, intolerant bullies on both sides. “Bully” meaning someone who is not content to leave one well-reasoned comment, then move on; someone who has to keep leaving more and more comments, using the most vitriolic language, simply because they can’t get their way….
    It’s pretty clear who the bullies are here. I must say I’m shocked at the degree of intolerance and disrespect shown in some of these comments by Darwinists, who in many cases (it turns out) are anything but open-minded, tolerant, or reasonable. The comments speak for themselves. As I say, it’s clear who the bullies are.”
    Here’s the original article again:
    http://bigthink.com/devil-in-t.....ith-darwin

    Darwin’s diabolical delusions – Ellis Washington – September 2011
    Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s diabolical, anti-scientific book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?f.....eId=343445

    Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People – Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic. – By Chris Mooney – Feb. 14, 2014
    Excerpt: The research,, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).
    It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....pathy.html

    While Ranting about “Quote Mining” in “Creationists Texts,” Paper in Scientific Journal Misquotes and Misrepresents Pro-ID Article – Casey Luskin – March 31, 2015
    Excerpt: These following two articles, (published by people with backgrounds in the field of rhetoric, writing in journals dedicated to studying science communication), discuss how evolutionists seek to marginalize dissenters with ridicule and incendiary rhetoric, rather than meeting us head-on with arguments and evidence.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....94851.html

    “In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
    Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    Discrimination (by Darwinists) is a pervasive reality in the scientific (and education) world. It’s also a hidden reality.
    Scott Minnich
    Richard Sternberg
    Günter Bechly
    Eric Hedin
    Don McDonald
    David Coppedge
    Caroline Crocker
    Bryan Leonard
    Martin Gaskell
    Dean Kenyon
    Roger DeHart
    Granville Sewell
    https://freescience.today/stories/
    Here are many more examples of discrimination against people who dare question Darwinism
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/review-of-darwins-doubt-slams-id-theorists-for-not-publishing-in-darwinist-run-journals/

    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.
    per ENV

    “Consider the irony. When Peter Singer endorsed killing handicapped babies in the crib, at a public lecture in front of the very people he advocated killing, Coyne defended his academic freedom and pleaded: Can’t we all just get along?
    When a professor raises the question of design in an astronomy class, or a museum puts up a donor’s plaque crediting God for nature, Coyne erupts in rage and calls in the lawyers.
    For Coyne, killing babies is a topic for reasoned discussion. Invoking God, or considering scientific evidence of design, is an outrage.
    William Fleming had it right: Atheism is a disease of the soul, before it is an error of the understanding.”
    – Michael Egnor
    per ENV

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170

    Verse:

    Acts 4
    Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than God. For we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 – you might want to read everything after that quote. For example the part about criminal convictions:

    Robinson’s criminal record includes convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court. He has served at least three separate custodial sentences: in 2005 for assault, in 2012 for using false travel documents, and in 2014 for mortgage fraud.

    In April 2005, Robinson was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened to protect Robinson’s girlfriend from Robinson. He was given a custodial sentence.

    In July 2011, at Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court, Robinson was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, for leading a group of Luton Town F.C. supporters into a brawl involving 100 people in Luton on 24 August 2010.

    In September 2011, at Preston Magistrates’ Court, Robinson was convicted of assault for headbutting a man in Blackburn on 2 April 2011. In November 2011, he was given a 12-week jail term, suspended for 12 months.

    And that doesn’t include the illegally entering the US, and fraud.

    You might also want to look up “some of my best friends are Jews”.

    I don’t have strong views on whether Amazon should ban books. But if it is a problem, then you should be able to find more deserving cases than Tommy Robinson.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Bob (and weave) O’Hara, like I said, the entire Wikipedia article paints a more nuanced picture than you do, for instance,

    In April 2012, Robinson took part in a programme in the BBC’s television series The Big Questions in which far-right extremism was debated. Mo Ansar, a British Muslim political and social commentator, took part in the same programme, and invited Robinson to join him and his family for dinner. This resulted in several meetings over the next 18 months between Robinson and Ansar to discuss Islam, Islamism and the Muslim community, accompanied by a BBC team which created the documentary When Tommy Met Mo.[47][48] On 8 October 2013, Quilliam held a press conference with Robinson and the EDL’s deputy leader Kevin Carroll to announce that Robinson and Carroll had left the EDL. Robinson said that he had been considering leaving for a long time because of concerns over the “dangers of far-right extremism”.[49][35] Robinson said that it was still his aim to “counter Islamist ideology […] not with violence but with democratic ideas”. Ten other senior figures left the EDL with Robinson and Carroll, and Tim Ablitt became the EDL’s new leader.[49][36]
    When Robinson was questioned by The Guardian about having blamed “‘every single Muslim’ for ‘getting away’ with the 7 July bombings, and for calling Islam a fascist and violent religion, he held up his hands and said, ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry.'” Robinson also said that he would now give evidence to the police to help in their investigation of racists within the EDL. Robinson added that “his future work would involve taking on radicalism on all fronts”.[50][47]

    Not to defend Robinson’s character, like I said, I never heard of the man. Shoot for all I know he very well could be a irredeemably horrible man, but what I find most interesting, in you personally supporting censorship of this ‘violent racist’, is that you constantly champion a worldview, i.e. Darwinism, that is, at its foundational basis, racist, and which has also led to untold violence within societies.

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin – Phil Moore / April 19, 2017
    Excerpt: ,,, the British thinker who justified genocide.,,,
    The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:
    “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
    – C. Darwin,,,
    Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.
    Enabling Genocide
    Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,,
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin

    Listen: Bought in a Slave Auction, Displayed as Evolutionary “Science” – March 6, 2019
    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/03/listen-bought-in-a-slave-auction-displayed-as-evolutionary-science/

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170

    It seems that if you, Bob, were truly as concerned with condemning racism and violence as you seem to be in this case with Mr. Robinson, then you would drop your amoral Darwinian worldview, (i.e. “survival of the fittest, i.e. do unto your brother before he does unto you,) in a heartbeat and that you would become a moral Theist, perhaps even a moral Christian, (i.e. love your brother as yourself)? Simply put, your amoral Darwinian worldview does not, indeed can not, match the objective and good morality that you intuitively know is right and that you, therefore, wish to uphold as your own moral standard. ,,, Morally speaking, you already are a Christian.

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality.
    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

    But Bob, in my experience dealing with your less than forthright debating manner, I seriously doubt that you will ever honestly face the blatant hypocrisy harbored when you rightly condemn racism and violence on the one hand, then on the other hand unrighteously defend a worldview that is inherently racist and violent in its foundational basis (indeed has led to much untold suffering in the world).

    Shoot, besides the inherent racism and violence within your stated worldview, Darwin’s misogyny in and of itself ought to make you sick to your stomach to be thought of as a Darwinist:

    Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued –
    “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
    In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective.
    As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....of-terror/

    Of note:

    Jesus’ Extraordinary Treatment of Women
    https://www.franciscanmedia.org/jesus-extraordinary-treatment-of-women/

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 – please try not to lie. I haven’t “personally support[ed] censorship of this ‘violent racist’”. I haven’t expressed an opinion on it. You also don’t help yourself when writing “Not to defend Robinson’s character, ” whilst quite clearly trying to defend him.

    I would also appreciate it if you didn’t make false statements about my worldview. You don’t even know what my worldview is, so please don’t pretend you do.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’Hara, my point all along has been to draw out your moral hypocrisy. not to defend Robinson’s character tooth and nail.

    You say you are not a Darwinist.

    Not to get lost in nuances, I classify everyone who toes an atheistic evolutionary worldview as a “Darwinist”

    Last I checked, you believed in both atheism and unguided evolution. I would be more than happy to change my opinion of you. Are you or are you not an atheist who believes in evolution?

    Fisher’s Proof Of Darwinism Flipped: William Basener Replies To Bob O’Hara
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fishers-proof-of-darwinism-flipped-william-basener-replies-to-bob-ohara/

  11. 11
    Bob O'H says:

    Are you or are you not an atheist who believes in evolution?

    Yes, but that’s not what you were saying about me.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever, it makes no difference to the main point I made in regards to your moral hypocrisy.,, i.e. My main point stands!

  13. 13
    Bob O'H says:

    Your main point biased on mis-representing my views, so I guess it doesn’t make any difference – you’ll continue to mis-represent, and claim victory.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Bob, when you can explain how you get ‘real’ objective morality from the illusory morality of atheism, you might have a moral leg to stand on. Til then you’ve got nothing to stand on.

    Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

    In fact, the way in which you yourself live your own life Bob, in fact, the way in which you have conducted yourself on this very thread, i.e. appealing to some objectively real moral code in order to condemn Robinson, refutes your own atheistic worldview:

    The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. 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/.....tml?page=3

    Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote unquote ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true

    Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006
    Excerpt:
    Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,,
    Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?
    Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02783.html

    And in the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to live their life as if atheistic materialism were actually true.

    Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails – Nancy Pearcey – April 23, 2015
    Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, “Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get.”
    An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, “The impossibility of free will … can be proved with complete certainty.” Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. “To be honest, I can’t really accept it myself,” he says. “I can’t really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?”,,,
    In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots — that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one “can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free.” We are “constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots.”
    One section in his book is even titled “We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.”,,,
    When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine — a “big bag of skin full of biomolecules” interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, “When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, … see that they are machines.”
    Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: “That is not how I treat them…. I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis.” Certainly if what counts as “rational” is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks’s worldview. It sticks out of his box.
    How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn’t. Brooks ends by saying, “I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs.” He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95451.html

    This impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true
    Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.

    Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen
    1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview.
    2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview.
    3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality.
    4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion.
    5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true.
    Conclusion: Atheism is false.
    http://answersforhope.com/exis.....t-atheism/

    Verse:

    Romans 2:13-15
    For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but it is the doers of the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.…

  15. 15
  16. 16
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    Whatever Bob, when you can explain how you get ‘real’ objective morality from the illusory morality of atheism, you might have a moral leg to stand on. Til then you’ve got nothing to stand on.

    This presupposes that objective morality exists. Contrary to what we see in the world around us.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Brother Brian, so you don’t think objective morality exists? Really?? Perhaps you would like to come over to my basement for a little one on one scientific test of your hypothesis?

    Cruel Logic: (The Original Short Film)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noP4it-QLBE

  18. 18
    vmahuna says:

    I find my booksellers using Bookfinder.com, which lists pretty much ANYONE trying to sell the book.
    Sometimes it turns out that, yes, indeed, Amazon is offering the book I want at the best price (sales price + shipping). Other times, some guy in India has reprinted an out of print book and is selling it for what has to be the cost of the paper. And both Goodwill and some Catholic monks sell used books online. I’m waiting for Used copies of Behe’s new book to show up on Bookfinder. I can buy another unrelated book for the difference between “New” and “Used”.
    The ONLY time I use Amazon (or more often Barnes & Noble) for a search is to make sure I have the author and title correct.

  19. 19
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    Brother Brian, so you don’t think objective morality exists? Really?? Perhaps you would like to come over to my basement for a little one on one scientific test of your hypothesis?

    That’s the Christian spirit.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    This presupposes that objective morality exists.

    Like presupposing the Sun exists.

    Contrary to what we see in the world around us.

    That doesn’t follow. Just because humanity has gone to hell in a handbasket has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists.

    Logic is a foreign concept to evos

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    BB, “That’s the Christian spirit.”

    LOL, so you refuse to scientifically test your hypothesis that morality does not exist because of Christian morality?

    As ET said, “Logic is a foreign concept to evos”

  22. 22
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    LOL, so you refuse to scientifically test your hypothesis that morality does not exist because of Christian morality?

    Who said that morality doesn’t exist?

  23. 23
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    Who said that morality doesn’t exist?

    A-mats. But then again we wouldn’t exist if they were right…

  24. 24
    Brother Brian says:

    ET

    A-mats. But then again we wouldn’t exist if they were right…

    Good thing I’m not an a-mat. But that still doesn’t prove the existance of objective morality. You know…. that thing that BA77 wanted to take me into his basement to explain… brought back unhappy memories of Pastor Ralph.

  25. 25
    bornagain77 says:

    BB 21

    “Who said that morality doesn’t exist?”

    BB 15

    “This presupposes that objective morality exists. Contrary to what we see in the world around us.”

    ET 19

    “Logic is a foreign concept to evos”

    🙂

    On a more serious note, I can provide scientific evidence to back up the Christian Theist’s claim that objective morality really exists.

    Since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of a even a single gene and/or protein,

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    ,,, Since unguided Darwinian processes have never shown the origination of a even a single gene and/or protein,,, then it is very interesting to note that 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

    In fact, atheists are shown to pay a heavy price both mentally and physically for denying the reality of objective morality in particular, and for forsaking God in general:

    As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “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.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”

    “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

    In fact, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.” And that “the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated.”

    Can attending church really help you live longer? This study says yes – June 1, 2017
    Excerpt: Specifically, the study says those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%. The Plos One journal published the “Church Attendance, Allostatic Load and Mortality in Middle Aged Adults” study May 16.
    “For those who did not attend church at all, they were twice as likely to die prematurely than those who did who attended church at some point over the last year,” Bruce said.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/02/can-attending-church-really-help-you-live-longer-study-says-yes/364375001/

    Study: Religiously affiliated people lived “9.45 and 5.64 years longer…”
    July 1, 2018
    Excerpt: Self-reported religious service attendance has been linked with longevity. However, previous work has largely relied on self-report data and volunteer samples. Here, mention of a religious affiliation in obituaries was analyzed as an alternative measure of religiosity. In two samples (N = 505 from Des Moines, IA, and N = 1,096 from 42 U.S. cities), the religiously affiliated lived 9.45 and 5.64 years longer, respectively, than the nonreligiously affiliated. Additionally, social integration and volunteerism partially mediated the religion–longevity relation.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/study-religiously-affiliated-people-lived-religiously-affiliated-lived-9-45-and-5-64-years-longer/

    Moreover, although the preceding evidence is certainly very strong as to establishing the objective reality of morality, Immanuel Kant’s requirement for the moral argument to be considered valid was that influences could arise from outside space-time. He considered it a major weakness in the moral argument that such influences could not be empirically established in his day.
    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 although, Dr. Suarez certainly makes a compelling case that Kant’s criteria, i.e. influences arising from outside space-time, has been met for validating the moral argument for God, the physical reality of objective morality can be even more firmly established with empirical evidence than Dr. Suarez had apparently realized in the video.

    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

    Thus, Kant’s criteria for accepting the validity of the moral argument has now been met on two levels. First, it has been met by showing that there are indeed influences arising from outside space-time as he had stipulated, and secondly, and more importantly, it has been more specifically met by showing that the human body possesses moral intuitions that transcend space and time.

    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

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    ,,,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 very strong 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, on top of all that, the ‘free-will loop-hole’ has now been closed in quantum mechanics thus establishing the reality of free will at the basis of reality itself, and adding further tremendous weight to the Christian’s claim that we are free moral agents whose choice whether to accept Christ or not is of unfathomably important eternal consequence:

    (Feb. 2019) Quantum validation of free will
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/neurosurgeon-asks-do-we-have-free-will-or-not/#comment-673312

    Moreover, exactly as would be a priorily expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Again, the implications for individual humans are fairly drastic,

    Bill Wiese (Man Who Went To Hell) – 23 Minutes in Hell (8 Minute Version)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqufixPt2w0

    i.e. you are literally choosing between eternal life life with God or eternal death separated from God:

    Luke 16:
    22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
    25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

    Because of such dire consequences for our eternal souls, I can only plead for atheists to seriously reconsider their choice to reject God, and to now choose life, even eternal life with Jesus Christ, instead of eternal death.

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

    John 5:24
    Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

    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/.....79741.html

  27. 27
    ET says:

    So Brother Brian is claiming he is NOT an atheist and materialist- really?

  28. 28
    Brother Brian says:

    ET

    So Brother Brian is claiming he is NOT an atheist and materialist- really?

    No. I am definitely an atheist (or, at least, an agnostic), but a materialist? One doesn’t necessitate the other.

    BA77

    On a more serious note, I can provide scientific evidence to back up the Christian Theist’s claim that objective morality really exists.

    Does that mean that Islamic morality doesn’t exist? ET might disagree because it is my understanding that he is Muslim. Or Judaic morality? Or Hindu morality? Or Seik morality? Or Nazi morality? Or Maoist morality? Or Marxist morality? Or maiyan morality? Or Incan morality, or…. I think you get my point. All of these have moralities that differ significantly from traditional Christian morality. Which one is right? Or is it more accurate to say that morality is subjective? As all of history has shown.

  29. 29
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 21 – no, I think Brother Brian refuses the invitation to be beaten up. I don’t know if that’s what you meant by your invitation for a little one one one in your basement, but that’s how it can be read. And quite how this fits into testing ideas of morality, I can only guess.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob (and weave) O’ Hara, in post 4 you condemned Robinson as a ‘violent racist’. I pointed out your moral hypocrisy in doing so in that you, (an evolutionary atheist who does not believe in objective morality, but believes in illusory subjective morality), are appealing to some objectively real and good morality that you intuitively know is right and that you, therefore, wish to uphold as your own moral standard. ,,, Morally speaking, you are not acting like an atheist at all but are acting like a Theist, even acting like a Christian.

    And as I further pointed out in post 14, the very fact that you are unable to live your life consistently as if objective morality does not really exist is proof that your atheistic worldview must be a delusional belief system.

    In post 29, you ignored that refutation of your worldview and referenced this exchange in posts 19 and 21 between BB and me,

    19
    BA77: Brother Brian, so you don’t think objective morality exists? Really?? Perhaps you would like to come over to my basement for a little one on one scientific test of your hypothesis?
    BB: That’s the Christian spirit.
    21
    BB, “That’s the Christian spirit.”
    BA77: LOL, so you refuse to scientifically test your hypothesis that morality does not exist because of Christian morality?
    As ET said, “Logic is a foreign concept to evos”

    In 29 you stated:

    no, I think Brother Brian refuses the invitation to be beaten up.

    But the elephant in the living room question is “WHY” did BB think it was morally wrong for me to torture him for a scientific test for morality? He certainly could not appeal to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ morality since, according to Dawkins, “some people are going to get hurt,,, you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.”

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    Thus, since BB obviously could not appeal to YOUR atheistic amorality BOB, BB appealed to MY Christian morality to try to prove that it was objectively morally wrong for me to torture him in my basement as a scientific test to see if he really does believe in the reality of objective morality or not.

    The bottom line, he intuitively knows, and I intuitively know, that it is objectively morally wrong for me to torture him. Yet only I have a coherent worldview that tells me “WHY” it is morally wrong. BB bore this fact out when he, with apparently no self awareness of the irony involved, appealed to my “Christian spirit” in order to try to say that it was morally wrong for me to torture him in my basement.

    i.e. He certainly did not say “That’s the Darwinian spirit” to try to prove that it was morally wrong for me to torture him in my basement. And indeed, the “Darwinian spirit” has been the source of far more horrible and egregious violations of objective morality than just one person being tortured in a basement to try to prove a point.

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology (Nov. 2018)
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Brother Brian is disingenuously casting about like a leaf tossed around in the wind.

    In post 15 BB stated

    “This presupposes that objective morality exists. Contrary to what we see in the world around us.”

    In post 21 BB asked

    “Who said that morality doesn’t exist?”

    The again in post 28 BB stated

    “is it more accurate to say that morality is subjective? As all of history has shown.”

    Thus BB is obviously not being forthright in his debating style in that he switches positions at the drop of a hat whenever he feels it advantageous for him to do so. But he obviously leans heavily towards wanting to somehow prove that morality is illusory and subjective rather than it being objective and real.

    Yet in post 25 and 26 I laid out the compelling scientific evidence that morality is indeed objective and real.

    But rather than addressing that compelling scientific evidence that establishes the reality of objective morality, BB instead disingenuously tries to point to all the various worldviews and says that they ‘differ significantly from traditional Christian morality. Which one is right?’

    Well, instead of pointing to the vast superiority of Christian morality over most all those other moralities he listed (save for Judaism), I will simply point to the fact that Christianity is scientifically true. In fact, scientifically speaking, Jesus is the ‘Theory of Everything”.

    In post 26 I pointed out,

    Moreover, on top of all that, the ‘free-will loop-hole’ has now been closed in quantum mechanics thus establishing the reality of free will at the basis of reality itself, and adding further tremendous weight to the Christian’s claim that we are free moral agents whose choice whether to accept Christ or not is of unfathomably important eternal consequence:

    (Feb. 2019) Quantum validation of free will
    https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/neurosurgeon-asks-do-we-have-free-will-or-not/#comment-673312

    Moreover, exactly as would be a priorily expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Moreover, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the ‘free-will loop hole, provides a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into that quote unquote ‘Theory of Everything”

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673179

    Thus we have empirical evidence, via the Shroud of Turin, strongly indicating that Jesus Christ, in his resurrection for the dead, actually did bridge the gulf between the ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity (and with Quantum Mechanics, i.e. Quantum Electrodynamics), and thus provides a very plausible solution for the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”, and, in doing so, provided a propitiation between sinful man and the moral perfection of God, just as has been claimed by Christians all along.

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic? – Giulio Fanti* – November 2018
    Conclusion excerpt: If, as discussed above, by authenticity of the Shroud is meant a funerary sheet, of very ancient manufacture, of about 2000 years ago, that wrapped the corpse of a man hard tortured and dead on a cross, all the scientific clues considered seem favorable to this hypothesis.
    Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ. The most important Relic of Christianity wrapped a corpse. The blood traces correspond to those of a tortured man. The body image cannot be explained, but the most reliable hypotheses refer to an intense and probably very brief burst of energy. The
    corpse, endowed with considerable corpse rigidity, remained wrapped in the Shroud for a short period, not exceeding forty hours. All these clues therefore confirm the authenticity of the Shroud [27]
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.pdf

    Moreover, the repeated ‘voluntary forgetfulness’ of established facts and the repeated ‘distortion of scientific evidence’ by leading critics of the authenticity of the Shroud are gone over in the following paper, and contrary to what the critics would prefer, actually bolsters the claim that the Shroud is authentic.

    Why is the Turin Shroud Not Fake? – Giulio Fanti* – December 04, 2018
    Excerpt page 5:
    a. As reported above, some important arguments in favor of authenticity are forgotten in an apparently voluntary way. For example the scientific fact [6,19,20,25] that the Shroud wrapped the corpse of a severely tortured man, scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified according to Roman techniques is forgotten when a painting technique to explain the body image of the Shroud is supposed. Other recent results are also forgotten, such as the numismatic dating of the Shroud through the Byzantine coins [25], which sees it already in 692 AD, while someone keeps on stating that the Shroud did not exist before 1300 AD.
    b. The reality of scientific experiments are distorted and the global result is forgotten at the expense of a particular detail useful for the present goal. For example the work [22] detected the presence of pigments of various colors on the Shroud, probably due to the contamination with other paintings, but only the red pigments have been mentioned in a paper [13] to sustain a particular thesis.
    c. Statements relative to a distorted reality can be found when for example we read that pollen grains detected by a researcher on the Shroud have not been seen afterwards [13]. In fact, the same kind of pollen grains [29] together with other particles coming from powders vacuumed from the Shroud have been recently detected thus confirming more dated results.
    d. Not correct statements are still frequent like that asserting that the sample of Shroud used in 1988 for
    radiocarbon dating had been perfectly cleaned or that the pollutant should weigh about 80% of the total weight of the fabric to reach the age in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.,,,
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555715.pdf

    As well, seeing is believing

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

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

    Verses:

    1 John 2:2
    He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

    Colossians 1
    15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
    21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—

    In Christ Alone – Travis Cottrel – music
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjR_A2pGPrY

  32. 32
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    No. I am definitely an atheist (or, at least, an agnostic), but a materialist? One doesn’t necessitate the other.

    No, it doesn’t. The only atheists who are not materialists accept Intelligent Design as the only viable scientific position for our existence. Do you?

  33. 33
    Bob O'H says:

    bs77 @ 30 – you’re back to mis-representing my views. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Still less that after mis-representing my views (after I’ve repeatedly pointed out that this is what you’re doing), you then go on to accuse Brother Brian of being disingenuous.

    Ig you’re going to bleat on about objective morality, it might help if you were less unpleasant about it.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Bob- What is your evidence that Tommy is a violent racist? Wikipedia doesn’t support that claim.

  35. 35
    PaoloV says:

    ET @20:

    “Just because humanity has gone to hell in a handbasket has no bearing on whether or not objective morality exists.”

    Spot on.

  36. 36
    Bob O'H says:

    ET – this is what Wikipedia says about his criminal convictions:

    In April 2005, Robinson was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer who had intervened to protect Robinson’s girlfriend from Robinson. He was imprisoned for 12 months.

    In July 2011, at Luton and South Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court, Robinson was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, for leading a group of Luton Town F.C. supporters into a brawl involving 100 people in Luton on 24 August 2010.

    In September 2011, at Preston Magistrates’ Court, Robinson was convicted of assault for headbutting a man in Blackburn on 2 April 2011. In November 2011, he was given a 12-week jail term, suspended for 12 months.

    I think that covers the violence pretty well.

    On racism, let’s simply start with his political affiliations: he was a member of the BNP, which is the traditional home of British racists. He left to found and lead the EDL, a far-right, Islamophobic organisation, which sounds pretty racist. Then there are his actions surrounding the Finsbury Park terrorist attack:

    It was revealed in court that the perpetrator of London’s 2017 Finsbury Park terrorist attack received emails from Robinson and read Robinson’s tweets in the lead-up to the attack. Robinson’s tweet mocking people for responding to terrorism with the phrase “don’t look back in anger” was found in the note at the scene of the attack. An email from Robinson’s account to the attacker Darren Osborne shortly before read, “Dear Darren, you know about the terrible crimes committed against [name redacted] of Sunderland. Police let the suspects go… why? It is because the suspects are refugees from Syria and Iraq. It’s a national outrage…” Another email read, “There is a nation within a nation forming just beneath the surface of the UK. It is a nation built on hatred, on violence and on Islam.”

    Robinson responded on Twitter to the Finsbury Park attack, writing, “The mosque where the attack happened tonight has a long history of creating terrorists & radical jihadists & promoting hate & segregation,” and, “I’m not justifying it, I’ve said many times if government or police don’t sort these centres of hate they will create monsters as seen tonight.” Robinson’s statements were widely criticised in the media as inciting hatred. Appearing the next morning on Good Morning Britain, Robinson held up the Quran and described it as a “violent and cursed book”. The host, Piers Morgan, accused him of “stirring up hatred like a bigoted lunatic”, and Robinson’s appearance drew a number of complaints to Ofcom.

    Commander Dean Haydon of Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism command said that online material from Robinson had played a “significant role” in how Osborne was radicalised and “brainwashed”. Mark Rowley, the outgoing Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the UK’s most senior counter-terror officer said that there is “no doubt” that material posted online by people including Robinson drove the Finsbury Park terror attacker to targeting Muslims. In response, Robinson said “I’m gonna find Mark Rowley.”

    So, yes. He rails against Muslims and Islam, which is racism pure & simple.

    (yes, there are extreme Muslims who should be condemned, but they are only a minority. Just like white racists such as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are in the minority in the UK, so we shouldn’t use him as an example to say that all white people are violent racists.)

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Islam is not a race. And those 3 incidences do not warrant the claim that he is violent.

    Followers of Islam hail from many different countries with many different ethnic backgrounds.

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob post 11

    BA77: “Are you or are you not an atheist who believes in evolution?”

    Bob: “Yes,”

    You may misunderstand what the exact implications of your own atheistic evolutionary worldview are, but I am certainly not misrepresenting those implications when I point out that you cannot possibly ground objectively real morality within your atheistic worldview.

    If you have found a way to do so then I am sure quite a few leading Christian philosophers would love to see your exact philosophical proof that you have done so. William Lane Craig being among them:

    The Moral Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    If you think objective morality and your Atheism are somehow compatible, then by all means share how you have managed to solve this irresolvable direct contradiction in logic.

    You are either being disingenuous or you are thoroughly confused.

    Since you apparently are sticking up for BB when he disingenuously switched positions on this very thread, I hold that you are being disingenuous. Prove me wrong!

  39. 39
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    Thus BB is obviously not being forthright in his debating style in that he switches positions at the drop of a hat whenever he feels it advantageous for him to do so. But he obviously leans heavily towards wanting to somehow prove that morality is illusory and subjective rather than it being objective and real.

    I have been very consistent in my discussions. I believe that morality is subjective. Didn’t I make that clear?

    Yet in post 25 and 26 I laid out the compelling scientific evidence that morality is indeed objective and real.

    I don’t doubt that you believe that your evidence is compelling. But I don’t think that everyone believes that it is. C’est la vie.

  40. 40
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    I believe that morality is subjective.

    And that is as good as no morality at all.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    BB, subjectivity of morality is irrelevant to whether it is also objective. If you mean it is ALSO non-objective, then you are actually undermining the moral government of our intellectual life by duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc. — opening the door to amorality and nihilism. On which, we are entitled to lock you out as self-excluded from responsible discussion. Do you really want to go there? KF

    PS: I suggest you look here in the current series: https://uncommondescent.com/ethics/logic-and-first-principles-10-knowable-moral-truth-and-moral-government-vs-nihilistic-manipulation/

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    BB:

    I don’t doubt that you believe that your evidence is compelling. But I don’t think that everyone believes that it is.

    That does not surprise me one bit. If scientific evidence ever actually ever mattered to atheists then Darwinian evolution would have been tossed to the wayside long ago.

  43. 43
    vividbleau says:

    BB
    “Who said that morality doesn’t exist?”

    Well cough cough you did.
    How can something exist if it does not exist objectively?

    BTW this book banning business reminds me of the abortion debate. We have gone from safe,legal and rare to ,yippee ,infanticide .Yes slopes are slippery indeed.

    Vivid

  44. 44
    Bob O'H says:

    ba77 @ 38 – who said anything about me believing that morality is objective? Certainly not me, so I’ve no idea why you’re trying to tilt at that windmill.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever Bob. If nothing else of substance comes along, I am done with this thread. I am more than confident that the unbiased reader can see who is being forthright and who is, as usual, ‘bobbing and weaving’.

  46. 46
    hazel says:

    “Bob (and weave)” is getting old, in my opinion. Sort of juvenile to keep this going.

  47. 47
    Brother Brian says:

    Vividbleu

    Well cough cough you did.
    How can something exist if it does not exist objectively?

    I have never said that our sense of morality does not exist in an objective sense. I am not aware of anyone, even psychopaths, who do not have their own sense of morality. It is how our individual morals are derived that I am claiming is subjective. The great variation in these morals that we see in the world, and throughout time, fully supports this. All the navel gazing that I have read on this web site and others about this subject does little to change this.

  48. 48
    vividbleau says:

    BB
    You use the term morality but unless something exists independent of what we think it has no existence. To slap a word on to that non existent thing does not magically bring it into existence. I have taken the liberty to rewrite your statement

    “I have never said that our sense of jaboworky does not exist in an objective sense. I am not aware of anyone, even psychopaths, who do not have their own sense of jaboworky. It is how our individual jaboworky are derived that I am claiming is subjective. The great variation in these jaboworkies that we see in the world, and throughout time, fully supports this. All the navel gazing that I have read on this web site and others about this subject does little to change this.”

    Vivid

  49. 49
    Brother Brian says:

    Vividnleu, our sense of morality has the same level of existance as our sense of emotion (like, hate, anger, envy, jealousy, etc.). There is no doubt that they exist. And our sense of morality is as strong, if not stronger, than any of these. But that doesn’t make our moral values objective in nature. For example, I think it is fair to say that the idea of beauty is universal amongst humans. Just as a sense of morality is universal. But what we consider to be beautiful is not objectively derived. It varies from culture to culture and throughout time. Just like moral values.

  50. 50
    vividbleau says:

    BB
    “Vividnleu, our sense of morality has the same level of existance as our sense of emotion “

    To cite three things that have objective existence(persons,these persons sense and these persons experience feeling) does not magically bring morality into existence . The only thing you have established is that people sense and feel a certain way about things.

    Vivid

  51. 51
    Brother Brian says:

    Vivid

    The only thing you have established is that people sense and feel a certain way about things.

    Which is what our sense of morality is. I haven’t suggested any different. What I haven’t seen is an argument that our moral values are objectively derived that doesn’t crumble upon the weight of evidence

  52. 52
    vividbleau says:

    BB
    “Which is what our sense of morality is”

    But morality has no objective existence the only thing that you have pointed out that objectively exists is that people sense and feel a certain way about certain things, period , full stop. Jaboworky!!!

    Vivid

  53. 53
    Brother Brian says:

    Vivid

    But morality has no objective existence the only thing that you have pointed out that objectively exists is that people sense and feel a certain way about certain things, period , full stop. Jaboworky!!!

    Exactly. Isn’t that what morality is? Now, if you can explain how the extremely variable moral values that we see are objectively derived, I would be interested.

  54. 54
    vividbleau says:

    BB
    “Exactly. Isn’t that what morality is? “

    I find your response to be quite odd and your question nonsensical. Your asking what is that which does not exist? It’s like asking “Isn’t that what nothing is?There can be no “is” for that which “isn’t.

    Vivid

Leave a Reply