Guess who’s the #1 atheist in the world?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 9, 2011

Atheism, Intelligent Design, News}

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

No. Not Richard Dawkins. He’s only #7 and is reportedly still stuck in that elevator without Skepchick. #1 is animal rights’ Peter Singer. More.

Comments

Still no takers? I’ll check back later. Surely someone has an unused sock.
I would think the reason that most folks who would be interested in responding to you now need to pull out a sock to do so, Upright, would pretty indicate the disincentive most folks have in actually responding to such at this point in this forum. Particularly in recent days with KF banning folks for merely disagreeing with him. I'm sure my days on this blog are now numbered merely for noting such...Doveton_{December 13, 2011
December
12
Dec
13
13
2011
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

"By the way, why did you bail on the discussion about genomic information transfer?" Not sure what you mean, I don't live on this site like some folks. Maybe I found the discussion trite, boring or complete. That or someones massive page long spam of links and misquotes buried your follow up comments. "Have you figured out how a immaterial quality becomes established in a material object?" What immaterial quality are you speaking of?DrREC_{December 12, 2011
December
12
Dec
12
12
2011
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

All this christian love and tolerance fills the heart with joy.Timbo_{December 12, 2011
December
12
Dec
12
12
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

hope you enjoy your celestial north korea.Timbo_{December 12, 2011
December
12
Dec
12
12
2011
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

chirp chirp ;)Upright BiPed_{December 12, 2011
December
12
Dec
12
12
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Personally I think that a woman who would get an abortion has issues before the abortion. Many of these women are not fit for motherhood. However Im sure that guilt, remorse and regret exacerbate their problems that much more.Mytheos_{December 11, 2011
December
12
Dec
11
11
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Still no takers? I'll check back later. Surely someone has an unused sock.Upright BiPed_{December 11, 2011
December
12
Dec
11
11
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

I disagree, A woman who felt no remorse would hardly be fit for motherhood in the first place.bornagain77_{December 11, 2011
December
12
Dec
11
11
2011
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

GUN you ask:
What reason do you have to trusting what you believe to be rigorously true?
Because what I believe to be 'true', especially the things I hold to be 'rigorously true', are rigorously true! :) Only someone who denied the obvious reality of the existence of truth would even ask such a question! ,,, A little guidance doesn't hurt either.
Marie Miller - Make The Most of Me (Official Music Video Premiere) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KGWKD7NX
bornagain77_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Many of the women in this report likely had these problems to begin with.Mytheos_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

What has happended to the quality of opposition at UD. You use to be able to make comments like those made above in 3.1.2.2.3 and get a massive response of people wanting to take on the physical issues. It appears that arguing over religion is more empirically valuable than addressing phyical evidence. That much hasn't changed.Upright BiPed_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

GUN, Though a few facts may be a bit off in this following essay, which I wrote several years back, I believe the overall point is still directly pertinent to the topic: What is Truth?
John 18:38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.
To varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock. Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real. A blind man in a darkened cave would feel the rock hitting his head just as well as a sighted man who saw the rock coming. A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and 'truth'. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (solids, liquids and gases) of the universe is ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can "hypothetically" be reduced to energy.
E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U E=mc2 - Einstein and the World’s Most Famous Equation (The history behind each piece of the equation) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDr9j1cJxPQ
This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs.
Atomic Bomb Explosion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI 6.4 mg of mass converted to energy in Hiroshima A-bomb 4,400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs equivalent to one ounce om mass 1 drop of water equivalent to 10 Hiroshima A-bombs Entire energy consumption of America, for 1 year, equivalent to 1 bowling ball 52 X 10^55 Hiroshima bombs equivalent at 'Big Bang' God's Creative and Sustaining Word http://vimeo.com/12995464
This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon countless trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a "non-solid" entity. In fact, the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising "thing" in the rock. Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the rock besides constants/forces and energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the interrelated unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place. Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the unchanging "truth" tells them they can and cannot do in the rock. To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet the truth can exist without the rock. Energy and force must always obey the truth that is above them or else the rock can’t possibly exist. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. Energy and unchanging force do not dominate truth. It is also obvious that if all energy and/or force stopped existing in this universe, the truth that ruled the energy and force in the rock would still be logically true. Thus, truth can be said to be eternal, or timeless in nature. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent in this universe. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it very mildly, if this uniformity of truth, for all of nature, were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically "true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding "particle". Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal instantaneous awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this "truth' of the speed of light). This scientific proof of 'instantaneous' quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality (and quantum teleportation), to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that "truth" has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates our reality in this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist (Extreme Fine -tuning of constants)). Truth, which is shown not to be subject to time in any way, shape, or form, by quantum non-locality, has demonstrated foresight and purpose in the extreme fine-tuning for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be "alive" from the fact that a "decision" had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that 'truth' inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place.
"The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914
i.e. 'Truth' is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, "uncaused cause", the Alpha, that created all reality/realities. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destroyed upon the quantum teleportation of its 'specific truth' (infinite specified information) to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics, and provides a direct line of evidence that 'truth' is the foundational entity of this universe that gives rise to everything in this universe. Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (truth is apparently aware of everything that is happening in the universe); Truth is active (it is aware of everything that is happening and instantaneously makes appropriate adjustments); and Truth is alive (Truth has created a temporal universe from a reality that is not subject to any physical laws of time or space (transcendent of time and space) for the express purpose of creating life; extreme fine-tuning) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, active and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God and is coexistent with the Character of His Being. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that 'truth', as far as the scientific method is concerned, comes from God. Now to bring this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth”. And in regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, I would say that this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim! If Jesus is speaking the truth, which I believe He is, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus equivalent to God Almighty. Well,,, Is Jesus God??? Though this is somewhat difficult to bear out scientifically, there actually is now some fairly strong scientific evidence that gives very credible, and persuasive, indication that this is so,, i.e. that Christ is God!
Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."
Myself, I find the overall pattern of evidence that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth to be overwhelmingly compelling as well as a source of great Joy.
John 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— Kutless: Promise of a Lifetime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wgA93WQWKE Solid Rock - the 5th service band Featuring TRU-SERVA - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4jD70Y-mQ0 A Biblical View of Truth - video http://saddleback.com/mc/m/97a67/
bornagain77_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

BA77,
GUN, though you experience order constantly, you simply do not have justification, in your ‘ultimate’ materialistic/atheistic view of reality, to presuppose unchaining transcendent ‘truth/order’ to be present in nature for you to discover. i.e. Other than your experience of unchanging order, from your materialistic metaphysics you have no reason to presuppose the key will always fit the lock!
Agreed. I just said that. lol I don’t presuppose order. I don’t believe anyone does. No one believes that there’s order before they experience it.
Your metaphysics in fact argues forcefully against such order at the basis of reality. In fact atheistic materialists presuppose chaos, i.e. random chance, at the foundation of all reality
Materialism doesn’t argue that there should be laws of nature. Nor does it argue that there shouldn’t be. The reason for believing that there are laws to nature is that experience tells us that they exist.
Moreover Gun, besides having no justification to presuppose unchanging order imposed on material reality ‘out there’ for us to discover, You don’t even have justification for trusting what you believe to be rigorously true:
Agreed, there is no reason to presuppose order. But plenty of reason to suppose order.
Moreover Gun, besides having no justification to presuppose unchanging order imposed on material reality ‘out there’ for us to discover, You don’t even have justification for trusting what you believe to be rigorously true:
I’ve already agreed that there’s no reason to presuppose order (actually, I already agreed to that even before you wrote this post – I have a feeling this is a copy-and-paste job I’m responding to). I’m not sure if my beliefs are “rigorously true”, although I try my best, I’m still fallible. What reason do you have to trusting what you believe to be rigorously true? You didn’t answer that. And, again: “If it’s for some “transcendent” reason, how can you trust your reason to believe that the reason that you can trust your reason is for some transcendent reason?”goodusername_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

GUN, though you experience order constantly, you simply do not have justification, in your 'ultimate' materialistic/atheistic view of reality, to presuppose unchaining transcendent 'truth/order' to be present in nature for you to discover. i.e. Other than your experience of unchanging order, from your materialistic metaphysics you have no reason to presuppose the key will always fit the lock! Your metaphysics in fact argues forcefully against such order at the basis of reality. In fact atheistic materialists presuppose chaos, i.e. random chance, at the foundation of all reality (and argue vehemently for such a view through multiverses, parallel universe, 'random' variation/natural selection, etc.. etc..), Yet the Christian Theist is fully justified to presuppose such order to be present for us to discover;
This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Presuppositional Apologetics – easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature – Presuppositional Apologetics – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper By Nancy Pearcey http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php Christianity Gave Birth To Each Modern Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153
Moreover Gun, besides having no justification to presuppose unchanging order imposed on material reality 'out there' for us to discover, You don't even have justification for trusting what you believe to be rigorously true:
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? – Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (‘inconsistent identity’ of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is giving in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don’t believe everything you think – October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
bornagain77_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

BA77,
Why should there be, on a materialistic view of nature, presupposed to even be a constant transcendent order that insures that the shape of the key will correspond to the shape of the lock in the first place so that you can ‘know’ that you are wrong?
I have no idea what a “constant transcendent order” is. But I don’t presuppose that the shape of the key will correspond to the shape of the lock, I believe it from experience. How is that different from a “non-materialist” view of nature?
i.e. Why should you, on a materialistic view of nature, trust that there should be such unchanging transcendent order imposed onto the material realm so that you can trust your perception and reasoning to be reliable in the matter of lost keys?
I’m not sure what you mean by “unchanging transcendent order”, but if you mean why do I believe the key will continue to work in the future, again, it's from experience – that’s the way nature seems to work.
You simply have no justification, on a materialistic view of nature, to presuppose such constant reliability to be accessible to your reasoning!
Why not? And what’s the alternative? Why trust your reason? If it’s for some “transcendent” reason, how can you trust your reason to believe that the reason that you can trust your reason is for some transcendent reason?goodusername_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

semi OT: Why is the neo-Darwinist PZ Myers in such a tizzy about this study on the after effects of abortion on women?
Study in Prestigious Journal Shows Abortion harms women’s mental health Excerpt: The largest, most definitive analysis of the mental health risks associated with abortion was published Sept. 1 in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. Conducted by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, the analysis examines 22 studies published between 1995 and 2009 involving 877,181 women, of whom 163,831 had abortions. The findings: — “Women who have had an abortion have an 81 percent higher risk of subsequent mental health problems compared to women who have not had an abortion. — “Women who aborted have a 138 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to women who have given birth. — “Women who aborted have a 55 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to women with an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy who gave birth. — “Women with a history of abortion have higher rates of anxiety, depression, alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, and suicidal behavior, compared to those who have not had an abortion. Coleman notes that a 2010 study by Canadian researchers published after she completed her analysis of the 22 studies, arrived at “strikingly similar” conclusions regarding the increased risk of mental health problems associated with abortion. http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/09/study-in-prestigious-journal-shows-abortion-harms-women%E2%80%99s-mental-health/
This study has absolutely nothing to do with PZ Myers' particular (pseudo) scientific field of evolutionary biology. i.e. There is absolutely no connection,, Thus his severely misplaced moral outrage, at a study not even in his own field of study, just further illustrates that Darwinism is a religion in every sense of the word for this man that goes far beyond mere science!
PZ's Blog: Bad science in the British Journal of Psychiatry http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/10/bad-science-in-the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/
bornagain77_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Become a Peter Singkateer. To join all you have to do is save 3 animals and then kill your grandpa. For level 2 clearance you must sell all your goods and give the proceeds to the poor while your girlfriend is having her abortion.Mytheos_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

GUN, that is far too simplistic an answer. Why should there be, on a materialistic view of nature, presupposed to even be a constant transcendent order that insures that the shape of the key will correspond to the shape of the lock in the first place so that you can 'know' that you are wrong? i.e. Why should you, on a materialistic view of nature, trust that there should be such unchanging transcendent order imposed onto the material realm so that you can trust your perception and reasoning to be reliable in the matter of lost keys? You simply have no justification, on a materialistic view of nature, to presuppose such constant reliability to be accessible to your reasoning! ,,,, This simple point is clearly illustrated in the absurdities of multiverse and parallel universe conjectures of materialists use to avoid the Theistic implications of extreme fine-tuning of the universe, as well as quantum wave collapse!bornagain77_{December 10, 2011
December
12
Dec
10
10
2011
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

According to what transcendent standard can you proclaim you are fallible? Atheism/Materialism certainly offers you no absolute ‘transcendent straight line’ from which to judge if you are straying from what is right and good or not.
I believe I'm fallible because I have been wrong before (once or twice). Nothing "transcendent" is necessary to discover that you're fallible. If you thought you left your keys in one place and discover them somewhere else - there ya go.goodusername_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

GUN,
I question my beliefs because I’m fallible.
According to what transcendent standard can you proclaim you are fallible? Atheism/Materialism certainly offers you no absolute 'transcendent straight line' from which to judge if you are straying from what is right and good or not.bornagain77_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

gooduser,
One of the few things worse than my sarcasm detector is my mind-reading cap. Maybe yours is much better and you can tell that they’re all liars.
Check the mainspring; that's what it was on mine. And you are correct about your mind-reading cap. I never said anyone was a liar. The “they're all liars” remark is a hot potato you threw in to call attention away from the fact that you and I both know these men are not promoting skepticism of either themselves or atheism. These men are abusing their status as scientists and academics, but its certainly not abuse because I happen to disagree with them. Its abuse because they cannot stand in front of the evidence and offer a scientifically-coherent answer as to where the observed formalism came from which is driving Life. These empiricists and powerful thinkers have fumbled around and forgotten which side of the bread the butter is on. It's on the side with the physical evidence.
Poor me, all I can do is go by what people do and read what they are promoting and use that as “a measure of the truth on the matter.”
If someone used their cultural status as an empiricist and academic to proclaim the “99%” certainty they feel about the situation while at the same time ignoring the material evidence against them, would that give you something else to go on besides your warm admiration for the skepticism they have of themselves?
As for myself, I don’t believe in God – and I agree essentially with what Dawkins has to say, but I consider myself quite open to the possibility that there’s a God and afterlife. In fact, I hold out hope there is (seems better than the alternative IMO).
Its good that you believe in choices. But its nice to be making those choices with all the information, particularly if you seek this information from those who say they have it – as well as those who are going to tell you anyway. Since you've read all these materialist' books, did any of them address how material objects can come to possess (entirely observable) immaterial properties? The translation of nucleotides into proteins requires it. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of a symbolic representation. Its the only way information gets transferred. Did they not tell you that?
So I have no particular reason to doubt that Dawkins, et al, are open to the possibility. I believe MedsRex, below, when he says that he’s open minded on the question of God. Why not? Too often people seem to equate “closed-minded” with “disagreeing”.
It's hard to disagree with something if you've never heard it. That's where the close-mindedness comes in, if it does. take care goodusernameUpright BiPed_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

GUN It may surprise you to know that the reason why Christian Theists can be so confident in their knowledge, and that some atheists will forever be questioning their knowledge, is because of the fact that materialism itself, which under-girds atheism, can offer absolutely no guarantee to you, as a atheist, that what you believe will be true, whereas Christian Theism, can and does offer that guarantee for assurance of truthfulness!;
I question my beliefs because I'm fallible.goodusername_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

GUN you mentioned Christian Theist 'knowing' what they believe is true, as opposed to atheists 'always questioning' what they believe is true,,, The thing is GUN, is that some atheists ARE DOGMATIC in their 'always questioning' what they believe is true! (I will ignore, for now, the atheists who think they know it all)!,,, GUN It may surprise you to know that the reason why Christian Theists can be so confident in their knowledge, and that some atheists will forever be questioning their knowledge, is because of the fact that materialism itself, which under-girds atheism, can offer absolutely no guarantee to you, as a atheist, that what you believe will be true, whereas Christian Theism, can and does offer that guarantee for assurance of truthfulness!; notes: This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Presuppositional Apologetics - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php
Further notes:
Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature - Presuppositional Apologetics - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. - Washington Times Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 No nontrivial formal utility has ever been observed to arise as a result of either chance or necessity. - David L. Abel: Excerpt: Decision nodes, logic gates and configurable switch settings can theoretically be set randomly or by invariant law, but no nontrivial formal utility has ever been observed to arise as a result of either. Language, logic theory, mathematics, programming, computation, algorithmic optimization, and the scientific method itself all require purposeful choices at bona fide decision nodes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/david-l-abel-%E2%80%9Cno-nontrivial-formal-utility-has-ever-been-observed-to-arise-as-a-result-of-either-chance-or-necessity-%E2%80%9D/
Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place:
Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k
The following interview is sadly comical as a evolutionary psychologist realizes that neo-Darwinism can offer no guarantee that our faculties of reasoning will correspond to the truth, not even for the truth he is giving in the interview, (which begs the question of how was he able to come to that particular truthful realization, in the first place, if neo-Darwinian evolution were actually true?);
Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think - October 2011 Interviewer: You could be deceiving yourself about that.(?) Evolutionary Psychologist: Absolutely. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128335.300-evolutionary-guru-dont-believe-everything-you-think.html
Are you starting to see why atheism is a 'always questioning', dog chasing its tail in a circle, proposition GUN??? Verse and music:
2 Timothy 3:7 always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Nicole C. Mullen – My Redeemer Lives – Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpCaNBhK4S0
bornagain77_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

gooduser, you think that what people say is a measure of the truth of the matter. LOL be my guest.
One of the few things worse than my sarcasm detector is my mind-reading cap. Maybe yours is much better and you can tell that they’re all liars. Poor me, all I can do is go by what people do and read what they are promoting and use that as “a measure of the truth on the matter.” As for myself, I don’t believe in God – and I agree essentially with what Dawkins has to say, but I consider myself quite open to the possibility that there’s a God and afterlife. In fact, I hold out hope there is (seems better than the alternative IMO). So I have no particular reason to doubt that Dawkins, et al, are open to the possibility. I believe MedsRex, below, when he says that he’s open minded on the question of God. Why not? Too often people seem to equate “closed-minded” with “disagreeing”.goodusername_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

#1 is animal rights’ Peter Singer.
Bumper stickers on Pete's VW Van: People Are Animals Too Preserve WildLife, Throw a PartyJoe_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

gooduser, you think that what people say is a measure of the truth of the matter. LOL be my guest. Here is a clue: theists and atheist alike say one thing and do another - fairly often. The distinction between them is what the rest of us can use to gauge their behavior. You stand here like you're defending a better model of lemon-fresh human being. Get real. Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens and Coyne and Harris tout those disclaimers so that they can feel the palpable power of their own objectivity. And the fools rush in. You need to ease up off the fumes. (and by the way, if you'd like to measure's Dawkin's and Dennet's value as loudspeakers for the truth of materialism, do it by asking them how the semiosis physically observed in genetic translation came about, not by admiring their masturbatory objectivity as they attack their opponents).Upright BiPed_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Yes that is one of the great characteristics of atheism. Atheist are always questioning themselves in public. They write books about how to be a good questioning atheist, produce seminars on college campuses, and promote the very real possibility of the falsity in atheism on radio and television.
I admit to having one of the world's worst sarcasm detectors, and I’m pretty sure it’s going off here – but I can’t for the life of me figure out why. Yes, it is normal for atheists, in their books, seminars, etc to promote the idea that one should not be dogmatic about atheism. (If you disagree, I’m curious what you’ve been reading?) If even Dawkins – of all people - in his most anti-theist book (“The God Delusion”) writes that’s it’s unreasonable to be dogmatic regarding the non-existence of God - well, what more could one ask? And the same sentiment can be found in the works of Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Gould, Sagan, Asimov, etc. What are the odds that if I pick up a book from a Christian leader that I’ll find similar passages regarding Christianity? Not being dogmatic doesn’t mean that you have no beliefs, or don’t argue for a particular position. It just means that you don’t ask for faith or total conviction for the position that you’re arguing for. This can be seen even in “The God Delusion”, and just about every other book from atheists that I’ve read. And yes, even in the bus campaign. Why was “probably” in there? Because they don’t want to promote dogmatism. So, yes, I would say it is “one of the great characteristics of atheism”. Where else do we see this sort of thing? It’s easy to promote open-mindedness and not be dogmatic on something that you don’t really believe. lol The true test is open-mindedess is whether one asks people to keep an open mind – even on subjects where they have a particular belief that they are promoting, and we see this in most books from atheists promoting atheism.goodusername_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

But hey...if I had a nickel for every time a materialist walked out on the conversation about the physcal evidence of semiotic information transfer in the genome, I'd be up to about three dollars and seventy-five cents. The finanical setback seems to be coming from the demonstrated fact that I can't get too many to engage the argument, either from the very start, but certainly not after the observations are laid out. ;)Upright BiPed_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Skepticism is generally viewed positively among atheists (even skepticism of atheism), but negatively among Christians
Yes that is one of the great characteristics of atheism. Atheist are always questioning themselves in public. They write books about how to be a good questioning atheist, produce seminars on college campuses, and promote the very real possibility of the falsity in atheism on radio and television. This of course is fully demonstrated by the Dawkins bus campaign where he said "probably no God" and the response from religious fundamentalists was the pointing of fingers and mockery that he was still so unsure of himself. That's how I remember it. It just goes to show you that the occassional attack on theism is really a mild abberation among the neverending questioning of themselves.Upright BiPed_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

If I had a nickel every time I’ve had a discussion with a Christian and was objected to for daring to describe their position as a “belief” (“I don’t ‘believe’, I KNOW!”) I’d be living in a different tax bracket. Conversely, I think the vast majority of self-described atheists would object if you described their position as “knowing” there’s no God. I'm familiar with the sites you mention. There are of course dogmatic atheists, and Christians with skepticism; but in both cases they are going against the grain. Skepticism is generally viewed positively among atheists (even skepticism of atheism), but negatively among Christians (“the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.” James 1:6) Recall the notorious bus campaign, of which Dawkins was a part of, many Christians poked fun at atheists for expressing DOUBT (gasp!) on their own position (“There’s probably no God”). And, predictably, there were (several) counter bus campaigns responding with ads such as "There definitely is a God”. Imagine a Christian (or Muslim) leader saying “I have doubts all the time” regarding the existence of God or that no thinking person “knows” that there’s no God. Of course, such doubts would preclude someone from being a religious leader. And yet, with that same level of doubt, Dawkins is viewed not just as a “leading atheist”, but by many (Christians and atheists alike) as arrogant and “extremist”, and there are indeed very few more extreme than Dawkins on the issue (P. Z Myers is probably one). Again, if the list guidelines were actually followed, there wouldn’t be much of a list.goodusername_{December 9, 2011
December
12
Dec
9
09
2011
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply