Progressive hero Ta-Nehisi Coates (an atheist) is conflicted about whether to bring on the guillotines. From a recent interview with Vox:
When he tries to describe the events that would erase America’s wealth gap, that would see the end of white supremacy, his thoughts flicker to the French Revolution, to the executions and the terror. ‘It’s very easy for me to see myself being contemporary with processes that might make for an equal world, more equality, and maybe the complete abolition of race as a construct, and being horrified by the process, maybe even attacking the process. I think these things don’t tend to happen peacefully.’
Materialist ideas have entailments, including (1) God does not exist; (2) good and evil do not exist as objective transcendent ontological categories; (3) God, who does not exist, cannot endow men with inalienable rights; and (4) men are not image bearers of a non-existent God; they are jumped up hairless apes.
If there is no good and evil and no God-endowed rights, by what standard does the progressive define the eponymous “progress” they claim to want to achieve? Certainly, there is no transcendent standard. The answer is that progressives want what that want. Theirs is a political philosophy bound by nothing and defined by their unbounded will to power.
Coates rejects the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. A non-existent God does not endow men with the right to life and liberty. Jumped up hairless apes have no inherent rights. So why not lop their heads off if they get in the way of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ pursuit of the greater good – i.e., Ta-Nehisi Coates’ idiosyncratic take on economic and racial justice. After all, as every tyrant from Robespierre to Pol Pot knew, you’ve got to crack a few eggs if you’re going to make an omelet.
Violence is inherent in atheism. By any means necessary is always the atheist creed…when peaceful takeover fails. It’s the Darwin way.
…and go to websites and yell “Evolution!” all the louder while you wave your rainbow flags.
Andrew
Dean @ 3: “…atheists are still at war with God.”
And everyone who believes in Him.
Barry, there are two factors driving the trend to violence. One is, as you say, that when good and evil are adaptive illusions power is still real. It is, in fact, the only reality.
But second, progressives (generally naturalist atheists or on their way to becoming so) are at war with reality.
Serious big government wars against reality usually end in mass exterminations because there is always more reality out there to kill and it keeps coming back.
I made the following comment recently on another thread. It is worth repeating here:
Many of our regular interlocutors here have tried to argue that moral values are in fact subjective. But subjective values do not carry any kind of interpersonal moral obligation. They are your values not mine. They are simply arbitrary personal preferences. Why should I be obligated to even respect your personal opinion? How can one have something like universal human rights based on arbitrary subjective personal preferences? And what good is any kind of moral system if moral obligations are not real and binding?
JAD @ 6: Everything you state is true. A/mats embrace the delusion of universal rights while at the same time advocating for a belief system (Darwinian evolution) that specifically undermines their universal rights delusion. Very confused people.
All this quietly ignores the fact that the Old Testament is riddled with stories of the most extreme and appalling violence perpetrated by God and his followers. Or the fact that in the two millennia following, a huge amount of blood was shed in conflicts between religions or between denominations within a religion. Violence, unfortunately, is inherent in humans whether theist or atheist.
As for morality, of course it’s subjective. How could it be anything else? Moralities can work just fine when they are based on shared or common interests and have the aim of protecting those interests. If you want me to respect your interests then you must respect mine. If we can agree on that then it’s a much stronger basis for interpersonal moral obligation than being threatened with retribution by some supernatural enforcer if you don’t follow its rules. What kind of morality is that?
Seversky@8: “If you want me to respect your interests then you must respect mine.”
You “must”? Where’d you get that from?
If you don’t respect my interests I’m gonna kill you.
That’s all there is in your world.
Religous vs non-religious. Come on. Makes no difference. Murderous persons will commit murders. Period.
The murderous proclivity has nothing to do with religions. The stats bare this out.
So be honest about it.
PS. Religion is bunk. So is atheism. Both side are clueless. And it’s fun to watch from the sidelines.
I feel as if I’m on a Mobius Strip.
Every few weeks or even at shorter intervals the, ‘Atheists have no Morality’, ‘Darwin Led to Hitler/Stalin’, ‘Atheists are Violent’ (as here), or variations on this theme emerge.
UD: Yeah, like atheist Coates getting all wistful for the Terror YESTERDAY.
This has been a religious theme since there was religion; ‘You can not be good or peaceful without my god, and if you don’t agree, I’ll kill you!’ Just ask Isis, or medieval Europe.
UD: We do not say atheists cannot be good. Of course they can, especially in a culture like ours where they can take a free ride on centuries of Christian moral capital. What they cannot do is ground morality in anything other than subjective preference. Even they admit this. This has been explained to you many times rvb8. I must sadly conclude that you are not merely mistaken. You are a liar.
If we look at the dominance of atheism and agnosticism within the scientific community world wide, we see a remarkably peaceful group of chaps, and chapesses.
UD: You mean those chaps that designed and built atomic weapons that could destroy the world a thousand times over? Or the ones that created biological weapons that could kill every man, woman and child 100 times? Or maybe it was the ones who invented mustard gas or sarin? Are those the remarkably peaceful chaps you have in mind?
Atheism leads to violence because of Stalin? No, actually, total power, totalitarian regimes lead to violence.
UD: Atheism leads to violence because of Stalin? That is an aggressively stupid question. No one ever said that. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot killed millions because thjey had no respect for the inherent dignity of human beings. And they had no respect for the inherent dignity of human beings because they were atheists who did not believe that every human is created in the image of God.
You know those all powerful theocracies, of yesteryear. The times when God and religion had the power and self respecting atheists like John Stuart Mill, in the early 1800s thought it wiser to keep his lack of faith to himself. For fear of violence.
UD: Yes, there have been some bad theists? What is your point? If you want to stack up bodies by the tens of millions, you need atheists.
No, atheism doesn’t lead to violence.
UD: Said the idiot the day after an atheist got all wistful for the Terror.
Utter belief you are right, your faith is right, and every one else is wrong; coupled to toatal theocratic, government power, leads to violence.
UD: And you think Coates is not supremely confident that he is right? Fool
Please keep your violent, religious, self righteousness to yourself.
UD: Uh, I haven’t called for The Terror v. 2.0. That’s your boy Coates.
Seversky,
I was waiting for this. You didn’t disappoint. You are nothing if not predictable.
Ta-Nehisi Coates all but calls for heads to roll 10 minutes ago. And your response: “well some theists killed some people 3,000 years ago.” You are pathetic.
That may be the stupidest question I have ever read.
Really? That’s all there is to it? Live and let live. Sing kumbaya. 100 million dead in the 20th century scream from their graves, “Seversky is an idiot.”
Coates announces he is ready to launch The Terror, v. 2.0 and Sev says, “What, me worry?” I fear the 21st century is going to make the 20th look like a walk in the park, and as the bodies pile up, Sev will be screaming “remain calm!” like the drum major in the parade scene from Animal House. God help us.
@rvb8, you are correct there are many theists who are also violent. But violence is not inherent in theism, unlike atheism. Only theists try to bring about peace.
Even the supposedly peaceable scientists you refer too, many of the atheistic scientists would like to wipe out most of humanity, and are arguably doing their best around the world through various forms of “hygienic” eugenics.
That is the logical outcome of a worldview that cannot account for free will and reason, both necessary preconditions for peacefully sorting out differences. Within atheism any difference of opinion ultimately comes down to determinism, and there is no hope of changing anyone’s mind. The only recourse in that situation is violence.
This especially makes sense if atheists believe theism is the source of all problems and that people are genetically predisposed to be theists, especially non-Western people. The logical conclusion is the elimination of those who have not evolved enough to be atheists. Hence the big push for abortion and birth control overseas.
Atheism is quite likely also driving the violence of the alt-right and Antifa; both are committed to a Darwinian understanding of humanity.
Barry,
the terrible inventions you mention are indeed used for killing. I’m not sure of your image of crazed scientists deliberately creating sarin or mustard gas to kill people is accurate. Many of these terrible discoveries are shear accidents, and decisions on how governments use them is most often forcibly taken away from scientists.
I’m going to stick with my description of scientists, particularly the atheistic ones (examples of Muslim scientists desperately trying to get Pakistan the Bomb abound), being peacable.
Oppenheimer very much soul searched his motives, and aid in the Manhatten Project. So much so that in 1960, with the full support of Einstein, Bertrand Russel, Joseph Rotblat, and other eminent scientists, and academics, he set up, World Academy of Art and Science.Just as ID has the Discovery Institute, so scientists worldwide have their society.
You also should know that Andrei Sakharov (inventor of Russia’s first thermonuclear device), turned to actavism against the Soviet regime in the 1960s. He campaigned against Nikolai Nuzdhin’s membership to Russia’s academy of sciences. Why? Nuzdhin was an adherent of Lysenko, and he also had a hand in imprisoning scientists in Stalin’s day.
No doubt you will point out Christian martyrs. We can play this game eternally.
However, if it came to choice between trusting, a living, modern scientist, and talking to them. And trusting and talking to a firm religious person, and talking to them, the scientist would earn my trust, and conversation hands down. I’ve known far too many religious people.
Barry: And your response: “well some theists killed some people 3,000 years ago.” You are pathetic.
Yes but it wasn’t just 3000 years ago was it? During the Crusades the streets of Jerusalem reportedly ran with blood when the Christians retook the city. The Cathars were brutally put down by the Catholic Church as were the Waldensians. There were waves of Pogroms against the Jews in Europe; in York, for example, quite a few were burned alive. Martin Luther famously aired his views of what should happen to the Jews. And how long has it been since a Christian attacked a doctor for performing legal abortions? I remember good old Christian southern boys lynching black people in the USA. All those things happened in the last millennia. Some in my lifetime.
You may say that all of those atrocities were perpetrated by those whose Christian faith was misguided. But some of them claimed they were doing God’s work. From an outside perspective it looks like there is no clear interpretation of Christian morals or standards. And this aside from the relatively peaceful disagreements that exist between various sects of Christianity regarding same-sex marriage, the ordination or women, the use of birth control, etc.
Sometimes when people ask me if I’m a Christian I want to ask: what do you mean by that? because I’m not sure what a Christian really believes. Certainly historically the issue is blurred. It may be a bit better today but there is still plenty of ambiguity about certain issues at least.
EricMH: But violence is not inherent in theism, unlike atheism. Only theists try to bring about peace.
There was quite a lot of God sanctioned violence depicted in the Old Testament which is considered Holy Scripture by Jews, Christians and Muslims. I can appreciate that God changed his mind but you can’t just brush the issue aside.
Only theists try to bring about peace? Really?
Within atheism any difference of opinion ultimately comes down to determinism, and there is no hope of changing anyone’s mind. The only recourse in that situation is violence.
This is such a straw-man caricature; if I portrayed all Christians based on the behaviour of some during the Inquisition you’d call foul.
I assure you that most atheists are like most people: they want a calm, peaceful life for themselves and their descendants. They DO NOT resort to violence to settle disagreements. In fact, not believing in life after death, I would suggest that atheists are the last people to think that violence and death solves anything in the long run.
This especially makes sense if atheists believe theism is the source of all problems and that people are genetically predisposed to be theists, especially non-Western people. The logical conclusion is the elimination of those who have not evolved enough to be atheists. Hence the big push for abortion and birth control overseas.
You have a very biased view of most atheists and atheism. If I upheld the views of some radical wing-nut Christians as examples of the whole group you’d object. Don’t assume that the opinions of a few (linked with your interpretations and fears) are indicative of the entire sector.
@rvb8, would you trust Nikola Tesla?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nikola-tesla-the-eugenicist-eliminating-undesirables-by-2100-130299355/
The eugenics movement that inspired Nazi Germany was not invented by the religious, though many were patsies.
Perhaps the best approach I’ve seen relative to the discussions here is going back to that Old Testament and try to fully understand the 10 Commandments, which is a theistic moral code.
Dennis Prager has written a wonderful book titled “The 10 Commandments: Still The Best Moral Code” at http://www.barnesandnoble.com/.....1621574170 I highly recommend it.
I’ve also given it my take at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/islamjihad-and-the-ten-commandments/
I’d be interested in readers comments regarding Prager’s book, my analysis, as well as general comments on the 10 Commandments.
Please note before commenting that Prager, myself, as well as the 10 Commandments themselves, assert that “God is”
But even if you believe “God isn’t”, then what is your take on the historicity of what is said?
From Tim Keller’s – Making Sense of God: An Invitation to the Skeptical
——-
Yes, under which rule in The Rules of Atheism would violence be excluded?
Andrew
rvb8
I never said they were crazed. Liar.
What is your point? Do you think they accidentally created sarin and mustard gas? Or maybe you meant they did not think the gasses would kill people?
Your post just goes to show there is nothing so idiotic that an atheist will not spout it in defense of atheism.
rvb8
Here’s a clue rvb8: Your dichotomy between “scientist” and “theist” is a false one. The vast majority of scientists have been theists, including some of the greatest. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, even Einstein (he was a pantheist in the mode of Spinoza).
rvb8:
What is your point? That even though these men created the most destructive weapons in the history of the world they did some good things?
Next I suppose you will say “Hitler loved his dog, so I guess he was alright.”
Seversky,
Based on what? Your subjective opinion about morality? Notice, you are making a universal claim about moral truth. You are positing the premise that there is no moral truth for you or anyone else. But that’s a self-refuting claim. Your claiming it is true there is no truth. (Please think that through.) How can you even make such an argument? How can your subjective opinion be the basis of truth that has any bearing on anyone else if there is no moral truth? What’s subjectively true for you is not true for me. Wittgenstein was right (from an atheistic perspective) when he said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
I have said here many before, if I was an atheist, I wouldn’t bother anyone. It’s absurd to try to impose your non-beliefs on anyone else. Cynicism about life, meaning and morality is not a solution for anyone.
The following is from a debate I and others had seven years ago , on another site, with someone who went by the moniker doctor(logic):
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2010/10/morality-without-god-would-i-care/#comment-24036
Later in that same thread, I quoted serial killer Ted Bundy who said the following to one of his victims. (She fortunately survived.)
https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2010/10/morality-without-god-would-i-care/#comment-24049
I’m sure that most people feel subjectively appalled by Bundy’s reasoning. But according to moral subjectivism nothing about his moral thinking or choices was really wrong, because nothing is objectively or really right or wrong.
And your argument is nothing but not predictable, despite presenting criticism of it. Let me summarize for you.
If knowledge comes from authoritative sources, and if there are no authoritative sources there can be no knowledge.
If moral knowledge comes from authoritative sources, and there are no authoritative sources there can be no moral knowledge.
Both of those statements hinge on a epistemological view about knowledge. Specifically that knowledge comes from authoritative sources. That idea is implicit in your statements, yet you have neither argued for or responded to significant criticism of it. Apparently, you think you don’t need to because you’re preaching to the crowd?
You’ll have to excuse me for not finding your non-argument very persuasive.
CR @ 27: The argument you summarize and attribute to me is one I’ve never made. (If I am wrong, I defy you to post a link to where I argued this way) I guess that makes you a liar.
Sev,
You say, “As for morality, of course it’s subjective. How could it be anything else?”
Is that a subjective statement or is it an absolute statement? Isn’t that very statement an absolute moral statement since you are defining what morality we should follow?
If you are correct about morality then there is no real morality. Only your opinion. Just own it if that’s what you believe.
@rvb8 & jvl, you must distinguish between atheists and atheism. There are plenty of moral atheists. But, atheism does not provide reason for their morality. Theism does.
When a theist wants to justify genocide and slavery, he has to twist his beliefs.
When an atheist wants to do the same, there is no contradiction with his beliefs.
That’s why all atheist states have committed genocide, but only some theists have, and in particular violent Christians receive much opposition from their own people. It is Christians who ended the religious wars in Europe and ended slavery in the West.
When a tiger kills the cubs of the rival male so he can mate with the female, he has not done anything immoral. He’s just being a tiger. If we are just evolved apes, there is no morality for us anymore than there is for the tiger, why in the world would any one expect racial equality in a world where evolution’s racial favoritism is entirely random? Should not the strongest race enslave the weakest in Darwin’s world? Where does the morality come from that says otherwise? From nature? Yes, let’s take morality from the tiger. Why this is so hard to understand for materialists, is the real question of the day.
Besides supporting subjective or “my opinion” morality I didn’t see yet an atheists mention their other favorite: a bandwagon morality ie whatever we decide as society at the moment those are our moral values.
I understand that most a/mats are against mass murder, etc., but what I don’t understand is why they think that attitude is (or should be) the default position for human beings under the Darwinian evolutionary model.
rvb8 & Seversky,
As I have commented before on this site, and as is pointed out above, your accusations against Christianity still sit within a framework set by Christian ideology. My challenge to you is to provide us a non-Christian referent for a civilization that is equal to or improves on Western civilization, where Christian morality essentially “won”, even among non-practicing Christians. College professors aren’t “nice chaps” who believe in “good morals” in a vacuum – they are considered “nice” and “good” because they have internalized and reflect the general Judeo-Christian ethic that (for awhile at least) still reigns supreme in 1st world countries.
Can you point to an atheistic, or Islamic, or Hindu, or Buddhist, etc., culture (where the religion dictates the mores of the culture, as opposed to being a sub-culture in the broader Judeo-Christian values of the culture), that has the same basic morals that you two inherently accept as “good”? Let’s take a simple one – equality of all mankind. Is that found in any current non-Christian, or historical pre-Christian, culture? And if so, what is the underlying ideology – is it atheistic/materialistic?
Until you can, all your blatherings about extreme outliers such as the excesses of the later Crusades, or the internal-to-the-church Inquisitions, are what’s known as majoring on the minors – whereas pointing out the genocides, cannibalism, tribalism and slavery inherent to non-Christian/atheistic ideologies is known as majoring on the majors.
I have to admit that I’m confused about this OP and some of the comments here…
However, to be fair, looking back in not so remote history, who the pacifist movement consisted of? Where there no atheists protesting against war violence?
I can’t recall any mainstream religions objecting to recent war violence… other than a handful of evangelical Christians featured in Hacksaw Ridge movie…
The pope protested the Iraq invasion, he speaks for the entire Catholic Church.
Also, the point is not that no atheists are pacifists. It is that they have no reason to be pacifists, besides personal preference.
The Christian, on the other hand, has a duty to be a peacemaker. When he is fostering violence, he is not following Christ.
Mother Teresa is just as consistent with atheist morality as Hitler, but only one of the two is consistent with Christian morality.
Objective moral values follow necessarily from theism– the worldview that an eternally existing transcendent mind (God) is the ultimate cause of all other existence.
Objective moral values do not follow necessarily from atheistic naturalism/materialism. If they did atheists would be able to give an argument that they do. IOW atheism does not provide a basis for morality, ethics or universal human rights. Even many naturalists agree with me here– E.O. Wilson, William Provine, Joel Marks, Alex Rosenberg, Michael Ruse, J. L. Mackie… to name a few.
It’s the fact that objective moral values follow necessarily from God’s existence that we can turn around and use as evidence for His existence. It is what we would expect if God really exists. Maybe that’s why a lot of atheist reject even the possibility of objective moral values. They are contemptuous of even the idea of God existing. The problem is the existence of God does not depend on the belief of finite self-conscious beings. If He exists certain facts follow from His existence. One of those facts is the fact of moral truth.
Have you listened to the podcast? If not you can find it here.
The stuff about the French revolution starts at 52.26. There’s no fast-forward slider on the built-in player, so you can use the download button and skip forward on your local media player if you don’t want to listen to the whole podcast.
In short, he seems to be saying the opposite of what Barry claims: He says he would like to see a world without racism and would like it to be brought around by peaceful means. But historically, the processes that bring about such changes tend to be more violent. If he were present while the processes were happening he might find them to be so horrific that he might attack them even though they led to a better world — precisely because he opposes undue violence.
Of course, I am paraphrasing to show what I understood his words to mean. Barry obviously got something completely different from them. Listen to the podcast and decide for yourselves.
drc466 – Let’s take a simple one – equality of all mankind. Is that found in any current non-Christian, or historical pre-Christian, culture? And if so, what is the underlying ideology – is it atheistic/materialistic?
Zoroastrianism
J-Mac @35,
“I have to admit that I’m confused about this op and some of the comments here…”
That is standard Barry. When he writes a post that is so obviously unjustifiable, ‘Atheist Politics is Violent’, he is well aware such a topic gives him maximum leeway to bafflegab.
There are simple facts:
1.) Through out human history, in any culture, the standard human politics was, Aristocratic supported by Theistic priesthoods of some flavour.
2.) Although atheists have always existed, (the Bible acknowledges this uncomfortable fact, with the lines, “A fool in his heart…”), they have only very, very, recently had a chance of a political say.
3.) Because 99% of human history is Theistic, all political deaths up to today, are decisions made by Theistic governments.
4.) Theisim is the most violent form of government ever conceived by man.
5.) Now that rational, Atheistic/Humanist/Matrialistic government is finally being heard, humans can now live to be over 70years, without fear of death by Theism.
6.) The Theistic regimes that remain on our planet, remain backward, violent, repressive, and childish.
7.) Thank god for Atheism.
rvb8 — I’ll reference my remarks @20 with an excerpt from my article at: https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/islamjihad-and-the-ten-commandments/
” Why would God declare “You shall have no other gods before me”
To answer this takes me on a two pronged visit to history and to current events. As I said earlier, the atheist is correct in claiming that man has created gods and not the other way around. Further, the atheist is correct in claiming that religion has caused more death and suffering than any other cause in human history … but ah … wait a minute here – that is perhaps correct up until the time the atheist got his turn at the seat of power and became the high priest of the atheist brand of religion. I speak here of the twentieth century and the rise of Communism with Atheism as one of its principle pillars of ‘truth.’ It is estimated that some 100,000,000 – that is 100 million – people died during the horrific 70+ year run of atheist Communism throughout the world. Some historians have estimated that this body count laid at the feet of Atheistic Communism is on the order of 7 to 10 times that of all of the wars that can legitimately be laid at the feet of Christianity – and factor in the 70 years of Communism vs. 2000 years of Christianity. And the Jews during these past 2000 years? Primarily scattered and mercilessly persecuted throughout the world and thus not a factor in the abuses of religion – except as victims.
What the Bible is describing, anticipating and warning of, in the sense of “other gods” takes on flesh in the form of those of history who would set themselves up as gods, or the emissaries of the gods they have set up. The mindset of such (typically) men have cause untold havoc, death and suffering over the centuries. Men such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, the kings of Babylon, the Khans, the Caesars, Mohammed, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot … the multi-generational Jong clan of North Korea come to mind. Though many of this ilk operate as cults of personality rather than a more formalized ‘religious’ structure, they nevertheless demand the obedience and adoration required of gods. This is the calamity and havoc which Exodus 20 warns of. … ”
This admonition of “no other gods” fits your Atheist world view quite nicely.
Don @41,
“The admonition of ‘no other gods’ fits your Atheist world view quite nicely.”
No, it doesn’t. ‘No other gods…‘, implies One remaining. That is not atheism, as atheism doesn’t like the remaining One either.
Also, referencing your own writing, in defence of your own position, is poor scholarship.
Also I note an uncomfortable fact @40, Points 1.) and 3.).
The first is that human history was dominated by the religious decision makers until very, very recently. And second, therefore, those responsible for the death of all humans for 99% of human history, were the religious.
Also, I notice you put Mohummed in with Hitler and Stalin; Why? He’s part of YOUR Abrahamic tradition.
Also, you seem to have a soft spot for the King James Protestant flavour of Chrisitianity, again, Why?
Do you not realise that as an atheist I evaluate all quackery by the same standards; Scientific/Materialism!?
rvb8@ 40
I wouldn’t go as far as you have with some of your assessments, but it is always interesting to hear the other side of the issue; as atheists see it…
I come from a Catholic family. My uncles served in the army during the II world war… When one of my uncles died, I got a hold of his diary. It was old, damaged, the paper was yellow and his handwriting mainly illegible. I became determined to have it restored. When I did, maybe 75-80% of it, I learned shocking things about my uncle’s war experiences and his PTSD after that…
His main confusion about the war was that Christians were fighting on both sides of the conflict. Furthermore, because our family was scattered all over the world before the war, including Germany, it was likely, that he was fighting against his own “flesh and blood”…
I came to a conclusion, that he took someones life, maybe more than one, and could not live with himself because of the guilt… He was an alcoholic who spent most of his life trying to forget the II world war experiences, the confusion it caused and the mental scars that could not heal…
JVL @39,
Heh – very nice. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion based on a supreme being, perfect creation, an evil anti-god, and a fall from perfection. Sound familiar?
rvb8,
Lol – your posts are always good for a laugh. Atheistic cultures always result in mass murders and eventually give way to religious cultures of higher morality and greater individual freedom. Always.
Okay.
Remember this when we get to #4 & #5 below.
Again, okay, and remember this (foreshadowing, can you feel it?)
You’re on a roll! Two fails here: First, you are treating all religions the same. Second, you don’t really have any idea what % of all deaths are political.
Logic Fail.
On what basis? percent of population? By number of years during which violence occurred? Absolute quantity of deaths?
LOGIC FAIL! As you’ve already stated, we only have a handful of Atheistic/Humanistic/Materialistic governments on record, all within the 20th Century. And every one, every single one, was more violent and caused more death, suffering and persecution of its citizens, than any of the comparable 20th Century religious governments. (Oh, and the “over 70years” is a non-sequitir – unless you can prove that our life spans are the direct results of Communist inventions and interventions). You do have one point, though – the 70million plus who died to Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were probably not very worried about “death by Theism”!
LOGIC FAIL #2: Technically, the modern regimes of the U.S. and Europe are still “Theistic regimes” if we are still using your criteria from 1-3 above. Even at the height of Catholicism’s power, the church was separate from the secular government (i.e. a state religion, not the state). So by this criteria, you believe that the U.S. and Europe are “backward, violent, repressive, and childish”. Any method you would use to distinguish the U.S. and Europe as non-Theistic regimes would also disqualify…most governments throughout history. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s…”
Okay, that’s funny. +1 to you.
I’ll meet you in the middle – all non-Judeo-Christian religions suffer from logical and moral flaws that make me not believe them – how’s that? Seems like that would be something we can agree on!
@44
Both side have to deal with their demons…
Atheists have had Stalin, Mao and others that exterminated millions in their name of their ideology; godless one…
Theists had the holy wars and the support for Hitler for the “better good” either to spread Christianity or to protect it from the atheistic Bolsheviks…The question haunts many Christians to today; Is that what Christian God wanted his followers to do?
Yes? No?
@45
The sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, and many, many other churches, is real…Ireland went from being one of the most Catholic countries in the world to the least within a decade because of the cover-up of sexual abuse by the church…so it must be real…
If you think this is not a big deal, I hope you can appreciated that most of the victims of the abuse either attempted or think about attempting a suicide…Many of them have been successful…
Many of the victims’ families find out about the abuse either when the victim is dead, or attempted a suicide because of the shame they feel and in many cases nobody believed them that”… a holy man of God would do it to an innocent child…”
I have seen the effects of the abuse first hand…
Dean_from_Ohio @ 8
None of which depend on Christian belief.
A physical body may or may not have been executed but Jesus, as the Son of God, is held to be as immortal as His Father. No human had or has the power to harm Him so the crucifixion was at best a symbolic gesture and, at worst, just street theater, the morality of which is questionable.
ronvanwegen @ 10
No, that’s the basis of Christian morality. Do as God says or it’s eternal hellfire and damnation.
Certainly, if someone threatens my life or that of another I might feel I have no alternative but to kill to prevent that happening but it’s far better if we can all agree that “I’ll respect your rights if you respect mine” is a much better way. Is that so hard to achieve?
I wouldn’t say that materialism necessarily excludes the possibility of the existence of a God.
That’s right. Good and evil are more like judgements we make, usually about human acts. There doesn’t seem to be anything like The Force from Star Wars with a Light and Dark Side.
Again, that’s right. We have to define, grant and uphold them ourselves.
Does God have a belly-button?
Longer happier, healthier lives? Freedom from want, freedom from hunger, freedom from persecution, freedom to pursue whatever makes one happy as long as it does not cause harm to others? The same sort of things that most ordinary human beings would want whether progressive or retrogressive.
Nope. But why should that matter?
As far as I am aware, there is not a single admitted atheist in the Congress of the United States, which implies that Christians have their hands on the levers of power in the most powerful country in the world. So what were you saying about an “unbounded will to power”?
And, as I pointed out before, the Old Testament records a lot of eggs being cracked there too.
1. Of all the people renown for bringing peace to this world, how many have been atheists?
2. Of all the people renown for killing large numbers of people, how many have been atheists?
Replace atheist with whatever other ideology. The ideology that maximizes 1 and minimizes 2 is the best. It certainly is not atheism.
drc466 – Heh – very nice. Zoroastrianism is a monotheistic religion based on a supreme being, perfect creation, an evil anti-god, and a fall from perfection. Sound familiar?
You asked for a non-Christian example. And, as you must know, one that predates Christianity by quite a while.
drc466 – Atheistic cultures always result in mass murders and eventually give way to religious cultures of higher morality and greater individual freedom. Always.
Western Europe, which was blood soaked for centuries, is becoming more and more secular and peaceful. Church affiliation is decreasing and theistically motivated laws are being altered. Individual freedom is arguably at an all-time high.
I’m not sure you can clearly argue that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot’s regimes were replaced with ‘religious cultures of higher morality and greater individual freedom.’ It’s hard to see that the political climate of China has changed much at all. Ninety-five percent of Cambodians are Buddhist . . . is that really theistic? Stalin died in 1953 . . . I don’t recall the Soviet Union all of a sudden becoming theistic after that but maybe I missed something. Is the Russian government theistic now?
Also, it’s pretty clear, that except for some wing-nut, gun-hoarding Americans quite a lot of terrorism these days is perpetrated by theistically motivated regimes and individuals. I can think of only one overtly belligerent non-theistic nation and that’s North Korea.
I’d also like to point out that the religious persecution perpetrated by Christian nations during the Crusades (in and out of Europe), the Jewish Pogroms and the Inquisition went on for centuries. It transcended individual rulers and was fully sanctioned by the Catholic Church. There is absolutely no question that during the Albigensian Crusade Christians slaughtered other Christians over a difference in doctrine. Just because it was a while ago doesn’t mean it matters less.
There is a fondness at this site for poo-pooing the Crusades, Muslim expansion, the Inquisition, the fact most NAZIS were Catholic or Protestant, India has always been Theistic (largely still is), and the world population largely begs to live in theistic chains.
Then of course after ridiculing historic fact, (the world’s history is largely theisitc and violent), blaming all violence on the usual suspects, Stalin, Mao, and Christian Germany, and Buddhist Japan, and Catholic Italy: Whoops!
I’m sorry, someone please refute this fact: Up until just a few hundred years ago, the majority of decision making, power, and law making rights resided in the hands of Clerics in Cahoots with Kings.
Isn’t this one of the most oft repeated reasons for the founding of the USA? No more Church, and the choice to worship not at all. Although it must be said the colonies did slip back into persecution mode almost immediately.
From https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206
@Barry
Your first entailment was “God does not exist.” What is God if not an authoritative source of moral knowledge?
If the goal of your “morality” isn’t to know what concrete actions we should take when faced with a moral problem, then what is it? Why should I care about it?
F/N: It seems the advocates of evolutionary materialist atheism need a reminder on long since well known implications of their philosophy when it intersects with the polis. Yes, known and on the record for nearly 2360 years:
The horrors of C20 and the current abortion holocaust of 800+ millions and mounting up globally at a million per week did not happen in a vacuum. KF
PS: Those cast into confusion or dismay by those ever so eager to deflect attention from the record of atheism and its fellow traveller ideologies by trying to taint and trash the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation, the underlying worldview of ethical theism, together with the scriptures and also to play the one sided litany game (notice, too, how soon it reached tainting the US Flag and Anthem once given free reign . . . ) may find here on helpful.
PPS: JVL, have you ever personally faced the challenge of dealing with a totalitarian police state? Have you ever pondered the courage, testimony and witness of the White Rose Martyrs, as well as their fate? Did you ponder the price paid by those who composed the Barmen Declaration, and the testimony implied in Niemoller’s poem, they came for? Have you ever pondered the life story of Corrie Ten Boom and many others? I think you would be well advised to reconsider your rhetoric above.
KF @ 57: Excellent comment. Thank you!
It’s clear religions have perpetrated many horrors. It’s equally clear the solution is not atheism, which results in even worse horrors.
You may point to secularism as being the cure, but secularism just hides the violence and makes it “hygienic.” E.g. Iceland “eliminating” Down’s syndrome by killing all the babies with Down’s syndrome. Arguably this is even worse because the violence is hidden.
kairos @57,
I’m living in a totalitarian regime, which is noticably becoming more strict; less inter-net freedom, more paperwork, more arrests in Hong Kong, and more Party Propoganda. Not quite North Korea yet, or Soviet Russia, or NAZI Germany, but intriguing to me, one who can flee, (my students can not).
Kairos, you have a fondness, almost farytale fondness, of Protestant heroes and fighters. Individuals of great courage who stood up to tyrrany, and fought the good fight; your example of the group of university students in Berlin resisting NAZISM, the ‘White Rose’, is one; very brave young men and women,; we agree!
Tell me, the guards at extermination camps who were also church going Protestants, and Catholics, do they fit into your equation?
How about the well documented communists in Germany who fought Hitler from the early thirties, died for their convictions of universal human equality, do they have a place in your scheme of morality?
Like all ID folk you display the all too evolved human fault of, ‘hyper-selectivity’.
@57
“…the current abortion holocaust of 800+ millions and mounting up globally at a million per week did not happen in a vacuum…”
I’m a bit confused about this statement…
Is this supposed to imply that atheists are responsible for the majority or perhaps even all of 800+ million abortions per year?
@60
Since both sides, religious and secular, have blood on their hands, what do you think the solution is or should be?
J-Mac: Ask yourself what changed the balance on valuing life leading to the rise of mass abortions, and especially what happened in Russia, but the context of the US says much the same. KF
RVB8, you don’t even know enough to know the White Rose martyrs were Roman Catholic. Your argument falls apart from the outset. KF
EMH, in this contest, “Religions” is far too broad a term, leading to promotion of what boils down to little more than prejudice and an easy excuse for broad-brush anti-Christian bigotry that is further fed by a one-sided litany against the foundations of our civilisation. I think a safer focus would be that power is addictive, attracts those whose moral compass is deficient, and that power elites can often hire ruthless violent or manipulative henchmen. Multiply by the notorious madness of the mob, and we have a much better warranted and actionable explanation of much that has gone wrong. Bring to bear the spiral of silencing when evil dominates in a society and you can see how marches of ruinous folly and especially murderous folly come about. That holds whether a society is “religious” or “secular humanist,” or even “post modern,” so evils and follies need little explanation in history, it is reformation and the softening of hearts that opens a critical mass to move towards the right, good, protective etc that need explanation . . . and the role of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in that is well documented though too often suppressed and denied in our day. Then, to address reform, bring to bear the question of what grounds duty, OUGHT. Post Hume’s guillotine, this can only be found at world-root level; we need an IS that inherently and inextricably bridges to and grounds OUGHT. The only serious candidate — yes, I point to comparative difficulties analysis at world roots level — is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. That’s a start-point: rights thus duties inhere in our nature as responsible, rational, morally governed creatures. Where your right to life entails our duty of care to respect and protect that life. Also, even our reasoning is guided by a felt sense of duty to the right, true, just, fair, warrant etc, or else it becomes the servant of deceit and en-darkenment under false colours of enlightenment. And, much more. KF
kairos,
‘White Rose’, Catholic? So what? What a tiny point to fixate upon, another ID favourite tactic. My argument falls apart? Really? Let’s try it again then, without my failure to realise the ‘White Rose’ were Catholic, not Protestant.
The Concentration Camp guards who were strict (very often strict), Catholics, or Protestant; where do they fit in your scheme of confronting evil?
The uncountable brave communists (misguided, sure), who did fight and die to prevent Hitler’s rise, where do they fit in your scheme of bravery?
Again Kairos, your ‘hyper-selectivity’ (and others here, Barry, and NEWS stand out), for choosing who is, and who is not moral, is on full display.
kairos,
when religion rules,( throughout human history), it ithe great ‘silencer’, of debate.
It is with the rise of enlightenment values, and the errosion of religious rule, that freedom flourishes.
It’s why I, an atheist, can attack you, a fantasist!
KF – Those cast into confusion or dismay by those ever so eager to deflect attention from the record of atheism and its fellow traveller ideologies by trying to taint and trash the Judaeo-Christian heritage of our civilisation, the underlying worldview of ethical theism, together with the scriptures and also to play the one sided litany game (notice, too, how soon it reached tainting the US Flag and Anthem once given free reign . . . )
Are you denying the historical record of centuries of persecution and conquest by Christians over Muslims, Jews and other Christians in the middle ages? Does ‘the underlying worldview of ethical theism’ include IS and the prevalence of terrorist acts perpetrated in the last 20 years? Surely you remember when blacks were being lynched by southern white Americans who, along with their slave-holding ancestors, were faithful church attendees?
Here’s a question for you: how did your own ancestors arrive in the Caribbean? Did they come freely of their own accord? And is the Christian faith you hold the same as that followed by your ancestors a few hundred years ago? How did you get to where you are now?
RVB8:
utterly revealing of your attitude to truth, fairness etc, and further reinforces how your whole argument collapses. You made a production about my highlighting protestantism as a rhetorical pivot. That fails, and everything else with it, as you have revealed disregard for truth as a key problem.
KF
PS: Your patent antichristian bigotry again leads you to use broadbrush dismissives about “religion,” failing to recognise that freedom of speech and the press were only feasible once we had printing, the rise of newspapers etc and of widespread literacy. Thhese are factors critical to a public with an informed and reasonably factual, responsive opinion, thus also to the rise of Democracy. The first time and place in history where this was met, was lace C17, in NW Europe and E Seaboard N America. And that was a zone then under Protestant Christendom, which over the next 100 – 150 years then became the birthplace of modern representative, consitutional democracy with recognition of freedoms and rights. Which are meaningless under evolutionary materialism, along with inherent responsible rational “libertarian” freedom of the individual — a matter that atheists here have never been able to cogently address. All under the much despised Christian religion. Prior to this, relative freedom of informed opinion and capability of contributing materially to governance were only possible among the educated elites, and that is the level at which discussions happened for thousands of years. See 66 above on a more realistic, historically anchored view of what has always been the threat to a community of a just peace.
JVL, you have some homework to read what was linked. Instead of erecting and knocking over strawmen, kindly first read. Like all of us, you have been given a very distorted picture in formal education and informal exposures, we all have a lot of rethinking to do to come to a more balanced and responsible understanding of the rise of and support for modern liberty and democracy, as well as the issue of the ongoing collapse of our civilisation. This last, led by ideologies hostile to its foundations but not realising the consequences of what they so confidently advocate . . . yes, we are in one of those grand marches of folly that trigger civilisational collapse and dark ages. The big worry is this time around nukes are in play. KF
PS: Can you trace the lines of influence from Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, to the Dutch DOI of 1581 onward through Lex Rex and Locke to the frame of the US DoI 1776 and associated calls to days of prayer, repentance and thanksgiving during the American Revolution? If not, ponder how if one makes a crooked yardstick his or her standard of judgement, then what is actually straight and accurate will always be rejected. Thus, we need plumbline facts, truths and principles to help us sort out the current grand mess of endarkenment under false colours of enlightenment and “science” (= evolutionary materialist scientism and fellow travellers) multiplied by the impact of cultural marxism under colours of critical studies. The recent media shadow show over the US flag and anthem is an iconic illustration of how many have been indoctrinated to despise the foundations of our civilisation and do not even begin to understand where the path they have begun to tread can easily end. I suggest pondering 66 above.
PPS: Locke on human understanding, in the intro, sect 5:
PPPS: Locke in Ch 2 sect 5 of his second essay on civil govt:
–> just for starters . . .
KF@64,
I did. Now I would like to hear your view…
KF – Instead of erecting and knocking over strawmen, kindly first read. Like all of us, you have been given a very distorted picture in formal education and informal exposures, we all have a lot of rethinking to do to come to a more balanced and responsible understanding of the rise of and support for modern liberty and democracy, as well as the issue of the ongoing collapse of our civilisation. This last, led by ideologies hostile to its foundations but not realising the consequences of what they so confidently advocate . . . yes, we are in one of those grand marches of folly that trigger civilisational collapse and dark ages. The big worry is this time around nukes are in play.
I am merely elucidating well known and well documented historical events.
The Catholic Church endorsed and encouraged not only the crusades in the middle east but also the pogroms against the Jews in Europe, the inquisition and the Albigensian and Waldensian crusades in Europe. Here’s a typical example from Wikipedia:
Notice the violation of the notion of sanctuary in a church.
Strangely enough, despite mass killings many Cathars refused to renounce their faith. Talk about being willing to die for your beliefs.
Perhaps you’d rather discuss what the good Catholic conquistadors did to the native populations in the new world? And they did always have priests with them, blessing them and their actions.
To claim mainstream history and research are distortions of well documented events is very strange.
As a Caribbean you are well aware of how most blacks came to the new world: in the holds of slave ships captained by Catholics and Protestants. Slavery in the new world went on for longer than it’s been outlawed by the US. And, remember, the US was fairly late in banning the practice compared to the rest of the world.
You may disagree with those American citizens who choose to exercise their right to free speech in protest of the way they perceive their communities being treated. But they are not despising the foundations of civilisation; they are supporting it by publicly taking a stance against something they feel is wrong. They are doing so despite a lot of pressure to bend or give in. And most of them are Christians.
How do you think your ancestors would feel about black athletes pointing out they are still treated poorly over 150 years after slavery was abandoned?
Civilisation is not collapsing because of people wanting to be treated equally under the law. It’s just coming of age when we are finally getting around to really practicing what we preach.
JVL, start from Vindiciae, William of Orange et al, Rutherford, Locke and the US DoI. Show us that you understand from the actual historical and state papers what was going on. Give us a quick and simple summary and then comopare the issues I put on the table in 66 above and in the onward linked. I repeat, if you make a crooked ideological yardstick your standard, what is actually straight and accurate will never pass the test. Maybe this can be a first test, as it goes to he heart of what is wrong with today’s mindset: kindly address the ongoing holocaust mounting up at a million per week, and over 40+ years going well past 800 millions, per Guttmacher and UN figures fed into a very conservative growth model. What sort of distortion of education, law, courts, law schools, media, parliaments and cabinets, etc is required to maintain passivity and/or enabling support in the face of such mass slaughter? How far and wide do you think such corruption of our systems and civilisation will therefore be? That’s a plumbline test that is naturally straight and a true vertical. KF
JMAC, you have [that’s a sample course unit], and you can see a tight summary at 66. Now, perhaps you can try the plumblline test just above to calibrate your yardstick. Also, reflect for us on Bernard Lewis vs Dawkins with Eisenhower, Petain c 1916 and Truman c 1945 (what about Le May? or Harris?) and on the implications of say what the Romans faced with Hannibal as a side light on what war based on blood feuds that can flare up 1000 years later are telling us . . . including BTW with the Islamists today who call us Romans and think of us through Crusades and premises of Jihad reflected in Q 9:5, 29 etc. This stuff is not dead yet, sadly. KF
PS: Post hurricane, net is still gappy and iffy here, as well I face ongoing policy and political crises ever since my return from dealing with a major bereavement. I am unable to devote as much focussed effort as this topic would naturally require.
PPS: What grounds the concept of equality of persons, and how does this lead to a responsible view of rights i/l/o say the US DoI 1776? Compare the warning in Plato’s The Laws Bk X above on where radical relativism rooted in evolutionary materialism leads: “the highest right is might.” Then, ponder the tendency of agit prop operators and strategists to ride piggyback on concerns, perceptions and feelings, imposing a crooked yardstick and thus pushing for power without due accountability nor a proper worldview foundation that can soundly bridge the IS-OUGHT gap. Then explain to us the way we can work towards reform that is sound and genuinely sustainable, without ending in chaos. As to suggesting that a civilisation slaughtering posterity in the womb at 1 million a weak is not in mortal peril, that speaks volumes on the need for a plumbline corrective.
KF – I repeat, if you make a crooked ideological yardstick your standard, what is actually straight and accurate will never pass the test.
How is acknowledging actual historical events making a crooked ideological yardstick?
Maybe this can be a first test, as it goes to he heart of what is wrong with today’s mindset: kindly address the ongoing holocaust mounting up at a million per week, and over 40+ years going well past 800 millions, per Guttmacher and UN figures fed into a very conservative growth model.
If you don’t like the laws then work to change them. Oh, I forget, you’re not a US citizen. But you do like to tell them how they should behave.
What sort of distortion of education, law, courts, law schools, media, parliaments and cabinets, etc is required to maintain passivity and/or enabling support in the face of such mass slaughter?
What is being distorted? People disagree with you and they live in a system where they get to decide the rules. Anyone is welcome to air their views of course as is the norm in a civilised society.
How far and wide do you think such corruption of our systems and civilisation will therefore be? That’s a plumbline test that is naturally straight and a true vertical.
The system is fine; western civilisation is fine. The only real problem are those who distort and misrepresent basic scientific truths like climate change and unguided evolution and who vote for denialists like Donald Trump.
You claim to uphold democracy and the equality of individuals but when the body politic makes a decision you don’t like then you declare the system to be corrupt and the voters brainwashed.
You’ve not for democracy at all; you’re for everyone having to abide by rules you think are right.
JMAC, half truths are among the most misleading of perspectives, as they are indeed fact in significant part but the key issue turns on their not providing an overall true and fair view. That is why I raised some of the points above, these help fill in gaps — notice how I have spoken to one-sided litanies again and again and have specifically directed you to Bernard Lewis. I have to go now.KF
JVL:
People like you, JVL. Ya see, JVL, the scientific truth of unguided evolution is that it is untestable pap. As for climate change the scientific truth is animal agriculture is the worst culprit by far in causing environmental damage.
This is basic stupidity.
Andrew
KF@ 78
“…half truths are among the most misleading of perspectives, as they are indeed fact in significant part but the key issue turns on their not providing an overall true and fair view…”
Really?
Let’s test you sensitivity to half-truths:
In the country of close to 30 million, where 98% + claimed religious affiliation, about 800 000 abortions were performed each year…
Please tell me what half-truths apply to this very fact….
ET – People like you, JVL. Ya see, JVL, the scientific truth of unguided evolution is that it is untestable pap. As for climate change the scientific truth is animal agriculture is the worst culprit by far in causing environmental damage.
Well, if you have a viable alternative to unguided evolution I’d love to hear it. Animal agriculture does contribute a lot of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and is, if I’m not mistaken, man made in that man is dedicating millions of acres to animal production.
asauber – This is basic stupidity.
Which part of climate change is basic stupidity?
J-Mac, again, you have slipped away from the framework and pushed in another context. We can infer from such a country that its value of life has been corrupted, which will have implications all across public policy and more; matters not if it has had Christian roots. The context in view is the rise of modern liiberty, the rise of democracy and its latterday decline into a march of folly for the world. Where in the midst of that it is on record for 2350+ years, that evolutionary materialism is corrosive to good order in the community, something that has been shown again and again over the past century. And meanwhile, there is refusal to acknowledge suppressed facts regarding the roots of the reforms that have built the liberties we have enjoyed and are now undermining. KF
JVL:
An alternative to untestable nonsense? LoL!
Unlike unguided evolution at least Intelligent Design makes testable claims.
CO2 is making the planet greener. CO2 is not the problem and never has been. Animal agriculture is responsible for the clear cutting of rain forests. It pollutes the oceans with its runoff.
ET – An alternative to untestable nonsense? LoL!
Well, if you haven’t got an alternative . . .
Unlike unguided evolution at least Intelligent Design makes testable claims.
I can only recall the one that ‘most’ of what is now considered ‘junk’ DNA will be found to have function.
CO2 is making the planet greener.
And warmer. Along with methane and some others.
CO2 is not the problem and never has been. Animal agriculture is responsible for the clear cutting of rain forests. It pollutes the oceans with its runoff.
That certainly is a problem but polluting the oceans is not causing climate change.
JVL, I suggest to you that no-one has ever empirically warranted the claim that the sort of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information in the living cell, and in complex novel body plans can and does come about by blind necessity and chance. By sharp contrast, such FSCO/I — including your comments — routinely comes about by design. this already shows gaps in your understanding. On “Climate Change,” I normally do not delve but I will note that trivially, climate is a 33-year moving average of weather, so by definition it changes. Further there are identified secular trends of rising temperatures since the ice age peak, and that there are quasi-periodic oscillations ranging from ocean currents to the sun’s activity that influence weather. In this context, it is likely that there has been some human influence, locally, regionally and globally, but the models and observations that are used do not even begin to come close to the degree of certainty promoted to policy makers and the public alike. Indeed,over the years they have not accounted successfully for the structure of atmospheric patterns of variation. Again, a gap and a circumstance of assigning Science a status of the new magisterium, which is unwise. I suggest that you would be better advised to look at what you are not being told. All of this comes back to the issue that we need to look far more carefully at whether we are being induced to make a crooked yardstick our standard of reference, which will lock out the real truth as it cannot align with the crooked. thus, the need for plumb-line cases that allow us to see through the shadow shows of our time. And that is why I again point to the ongoing abortion holocaust of 800+ millions mounting up at another million per week. If we cannot see clearly to recognise that this is utterly inexcusable and should be stopped, and that the degree of corruption of key institutions of education, law, government, media and the like that this implies, then we are not fit to think clearly on anything else of significance. KF
PS: Do you realise that multi year and multi decadal ocean temperature and salinity patterns directly influence things like hurricanes?
JVL:
That sounds like you don’t know anything about Intelligent Design. We can test the claim that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex and you cannot say how unguided evolution didit.
On CO2
Yeah less than 2 degrees F in over 120 years. And seeing that we have temperature swings of up to 50 degrees in just a couple days the alleged warming from greenhouse gasses doesn’t even register.
Animal agriculture is the number one cause of any climate change alleged by humans.
KF – I suggest to you that no-one has ever empirically warranted the claim that the sort of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information in the living cell, and in complex novel body plans can and does come about by blind necessity and chance. By sharp contrast, such FSCO/I — including your comments — routinely comes about by design. this already shows gaps in your understanding.
Well, I suppose complex novel body plans could have come about by design but there isn’t any evidence of the kind of facilities and support necessary for that kind of complex work . . . at least the way it would be done based on our current understanding. I mean it would take a lot of resources, energy and time. But I’m not sure what kind of ‘design’ you are promoting: something ongoing or what I believe is called ‘front loading’.
I will note that trivially, climate is a 33-year moving average of weather, so by definition it changes. Further there are identified secular trends of rising temperatures since the ice age peak, and that there are quasi-periodic oscillations ranging from ocean currents to the sun’s activity that influence weather.
Well, I think all those other influences have been taken into account in the IPCC reports. Do you have specialised knowledge that indicates where, specifically, they made errors in their accounts?
Again, a gap and a circumstance of assigning Science a status of the new magisterium, which is unwise. I suggest that you would be better advised to look at what you are not being told.
Uh . . . all the data is public and anyone can look at it and analyse the analysis.
All of this comes back to the issue that we need to look far more carefully at whether we are being induced to make a crooked yardstick our standard of reference, which will lock out the real truth as it cannot align with the crooked. thus, the need for plumb-line cases that allow us to see through the shadow shows of our time. And that is why I again point to the ongoing abortion holocaust of 800+ millions mounting up at another million per week.
Clearly abortion is a crucial issue for you but just because you disagree with the laws that have been enacted in multiple nations supporting some forms of abortion doesn’t mean that civilisation is on the brink of collapse. A democracy is not always going to render decisions that everyone agrees with. But it’s a good and fair system even if you find some of the outcomes disappointing.
ET – That sounds like you don’t know anything about Intelligent Design. We can test the claim that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex and you cannot say how unguided evolution didit.
Well, that doesn’t exactly provide an alternative to unguided evolution but okay, how do you test the claim that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex?
Yeah less than 2 degrees F in over 120 years. And seeing that we have temperature swings of up to 50 degrees in just a couple days the alleged warming from greenhouse gasses doesn’t even register.
Well, daily weather is not the same thing as long term climate trends. And the warming is accelerating. The data is pretty clear.
Animal agriculture is the number one cause of any climate change alleged by humans.
Well, as I said, I’m sure it’s a contributing factor but the IPCC reports disagree with you.
You declaring that climate change is a basic scientific truth.
It doesn’t get much stupider, in fact, it’s a pretty big lie.
Andrew
JVL:
By seeing if all the parts have to be in place before ATP can be created.
Daily weather sets the climate. And climate alarmists use daily weather to try to bolster their claims all of the time.
My claim is based on science whereas the IPCC’s is not.
The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production
asauber – You declaring that climate change is a basic scientific truth.
It doesn’t get much stupider, in fact, it’s a pretty big lie.
Well, can you point to some specific mistakes in the IPCC reports?
ET – By seeing if all the parts have to be in place before ATP can be created.
Has anyone done that then?
Daily weather sets the climate. And climate alarmists use daily weather to try to bolster their claims all of the time.
I suppose some ‘alarmists’ do point to particular days and say ‘See! Global warming!’ But I don’t think any scientists do that. It’s all about long term trends isn’t it?
My claim is based on science whereas the IPCC’s is not.
Well, if you can point out mistakes made by the iPCC that would be interesting to say the least.
ET
From the article you linked to:
18% is substantial and I do agree that livestock production certainly contributes to climate change and environmental degradation. A friend of mine used to say: if we had meat as a treat instead of a staple the environment would be better off which is hard to disagree with.
But there is that other 82% . . .
Before I do that, lemme ask you a question:
If there was a mistake in an IPCC report, would you be able to detect it?
Andrew
asauber – Before I do that, lemme ask you a question:
If there was a mistake in an IPCC report, would you be able to detect it?
It would depend on the mistake.
If you point out a mistake that I can’t grasp then I would try and look up some of the background.
So your argument isn’t really about basic scientific truths, it’s about parsing a report for mistakes you may or may not understand.
Andrew
asauber – So your argument isn’t really about basic scientific truths, it’s about parsing a report for mistakes you may or may not understand.
What? It would be incredibly difficult to find someone who was competent to analyse every aspect of the IPCC reports! That’s the whole point of having a lot of people contribute to them and collate the information!
If the truths you want to point out are basic then I suspect I’d have a better chance of understanding your objections.
JVL:
They seem to focus on CO2 without demonstrating that an increase of 120 parts per million could cause the less than 2 degrees F increase. Also there really isn’t a global temperature.
If we cut our animal agriculture in half most of the problems would go away.
Ice caps and glaciers melt because they are dirty. And anyone who lives in the great white north knows that dirty snow melts faster than pristine white snow. Dirty snow melts even when the temps are below freezing.
Back to ATP synthase:
To hold the two very different subunits together so the machine can operate is an external protein beam that connects the motor to the membrane just the right distance above the subunit that provides the power for the motor.
And without that connection you can produce all of the two ATP synthase subunits you want but you could never get them to produce ATP synthase.
JVL, you need to understand the power of inference on empirically tested, reliable signs. On trillions of observed cases of the cause of FSCO/I for short, we know it to be reliably caused by intelligently directed configuration. Indeed, to object, you produced yet more cases in point. There are precisely nil cases of observed cause by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, and the search challenge in configuration spaces under constraint of observed cosmos scope atomic resources and time leads to utter implausibility once we have 500 – 1,000 bits of information. Just on genome scale, a first cell based life form required 100 – 1,000 k bases, vastly beyond the threshold. So, we can safely conclude on sign that life from first cells to us, was designed. Next, while I have no intent to delve on long exchanges, you have skirted the issues that undermine the confident manner assertions on “consensus” relevant to climate claims. On that, I simply point you to meteorologist Watts and his site for long exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC’s claims, their summaries for policy-makers and more. All of this is tangential to the focal issue from the OP, but goes to how too many have come to repose unwarranted confidence in the new magisterium and its publicists. This in turn highlights the issues of the crooked yardstick and the need to take a serious second look at the dominant narratives of a day that has institutions utterly tainted and warped by the manipulation required to build up and sustain a global holocaust on the scale of 800+ millions, mounting further at a million per week. Such a case instantly exposes the utter bankruptcy of the leading institutions of our day, and directly underscores the point of the OP. KF
PS: Just now, to dig up WUWT, I used a search. The smears in just the visible opening words at Wikipedia were enough to inadvertently highlight the point. Watts et al do not “deny” climate change, they challenge the presented consensus on substantial grounds. And hinting of holocaust denial is little more than a cheap slander by loaded terminology. BTW, that is part of why I started with how trivially true climate change is, given the moving average. As for reckoning successfully with various drivers, and producing models that stand the test of sound prediction, the answer is, such models are yet far off and face issues of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, just as one point. Here is a link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/
JVL, I suspect you aren’t compentent to analyse most aspects of the IPCC reports.
You are the guy who made claims about scientific truths.
I think you are confused and have little of value to add to any scientific discussion.
Andrew
ET – They seem to focus on CO2 without demonstrating that an increase of 120 parts per million could cause the less than 2 degrees F increase. Also there really isn’t a global temperature.
I think that increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causing atmospheric warming is old science. Do you have a specific mistake to point out?
It seems to me that the IPCC reports do have projections which are ‘bounded’ based on different assumptions.
There are global and regional averages which is what is used. And they are defined in the reports.
If we cut our animal agriculture in half most of the problems would go away.
Some problems would ‘get better’ but it would only slow down climate change.
Ice caps and glaciers melt because they are dirty. And anyone who lives in the great white north knows that dirty snow melts faster than pristine white snow. Dirty snow melts even when the temps are below freezing.
Uh . . . melting is occurring regardless of how dirty the ice and glaciers are.
To hold the two very different subunits together so the machine can operate is an external protein beam that connects the motor to the membrane just the right distance above the subunit that provides the power for the motor.
And without that connection you can produce all of the two ATP synthase subunits you want but you could never get them to produce ATP synthase.
That’s one particular ‘fault line’ but that doesn’t make ATP synthase irreducibly complex. The question is: are all bits and parts of ATP synthase required for it to have any function at all. Also, why do you say ‘external protein beam’ implying it comes from outside ‘the machine’?
asauber – JVL, I suspect you aren’t compentent to analyse most aspects of the IPCC reports.
You might be right. But unless you point out specific mistakes made in an IPCC report we can’t judge your stance.
You are the guy who made claims about scientific truths.
I think you are confused and have little of value to add to any scientific discussion.
Well, you don’t know my background or areas of expertise. You don’t like my responses so you choose to disparage my knowledge without any basis for doing so.
Unless you are willing to point out specific errors in an IPCC report we can’t judge your stance.
JVL, notice how you have ducked the history challenge on the focal issue of the roots of modern liberty and democracy? KF
PS: Just to back some points from 66, here is Plato in his Republic on the ship of state parable:
KF – JVL, you need to understand the power of inference on empirically tested, reliable signs. On trillions of observed cases of the cause of FSCO/I for short, we know it to be reliably caused by intelligently directed configuration.
Trillions of cases? But seriously, your argument sounds like saying: I’ve observed thousands of white swans so there can be no black swans.
There are precisely nil cases of observed cause by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity, and the search challenge in configuration spaces under constraint of observed cosmos scope atomic resources and time leads to utter implausibility once we have 500 – 1,000 bits of information
The assertion that there are ‘nil’ cases is merely an assertion. Also, Evolutionary processes do not do a complete and undirected search through all the sample space. They take an existing ‘form’ and test out minor variations.
Just on genome scale, a first cell based life form required 100 – 1,000 k bases, vastly beyond the threshold. So, we can safely conclude on sign that life from first cells to us, was designed
Not really. The first cell didn’t just arise without precursors.
I really think you need to point out a specific mistake made in an IPCC report.
This in turn highlights the issues of the crooked yardstick and the need to take a serious second look at the dominant narratives of a day that has institutions utterly tainted and warped by the manipulation required to build up and sustain a global holocaust on the scale of 800+ millions, mounting further at a million per week. Such a case instantly exposes the utter bankruptcy of the leading institutions of our day, and directly underscores the point of the OP
As I’ve already noted: you think Democracy is a great idea until your view is in the minority. In fact, you imply the electorate is deluded or brain washed which means you don’t, in fact, trust democracy as a political process.
The smears in just the visible opening words at Wikipedia were enough to inadvertently highlight the point. Watts et al do not “deny” climate change, they challenge the presented consensus on substantial grounds.
Fine, then it should be easy to point to a specific mistake made in an IPCC report.
And hinting of holocaust denial is little more than a cheap slander by loaded terminology. BTW, that is part of why I started with how trivially true climate change is, given the moving average. As for reckoning successfully with various drivers, and producing models that stand the test of sound prediction, the answer is, such models are yet far off and face issues of sensitive dependence on initial conditions, just as one point.
I don’t remember introducing Holocaust denial (I certainly did note the Pogroms levied against the Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages which are factual) but I will review my comments.
You may find the predictions of the IPCC non-compelling but they were developed by thousands of knowledgeable scientists working all over the planet. I’m sorry but unless you can provide a clear and solid mistake made by the IPCC . . .
KF – notice how you have ducked the history challenge on the focal issue of the roots of modern liberty and democracy
I was merely pointing out some clear and obvious historical facts. Which are not contradictory to your points. But you seem to not want to acknowledge some of the atrocities perpetrated by Christians and the Catholic and Protestant churches. Why is that?
JVL:
It isn’t science at all. There are many factors. And again I will point out that no one has shown that such a small increase can have the effects stated.
If it only slows down climate change then we are not the problem
Show us the white snow that melts when the temps are below freezing.
Actually it does as the removal of that part and you don’t have ATP synthase. Then you add in all of the other parts and it is easily IC.
Umm if you don’t have ATP synthase then you don’t have life. You could only have proto-life tethered to an energy source.
It is outside of the machine. see stator
But we can judge yours. It’s based on a report you admit you don’t understand.
Andrew
ET – It isn’t science at all. There are many factors. And again I will point out that no one has shown that such a small increase can have the effects stated.
Well, I guess I can try and track down the research . . . I gather you won’t.
If it only slows down climate change then we are not the problem
No, because other man-made processes are dumping a lot more greenhouse gases into the environment. The paper you cited said the issue you were highlighting could only account for about 18% of the extra carbon dioxide.
Show us the white snow that melts when the temps are below freezing.
What? No one is saying melting is going on above or at freezing temperature! That’s the problem! The global average temperature is rising so that certain areas at certain times are no longer below freezing.
Actually it does as the removal of that part and you don’t have ATP synthase. Then you add in all of the other parts and it is easily IC.
Yes but you haven’t proved that the removal of that part removes all possible functions. Who says that the precursors to ATP synthase fulfilled the same function?
Umm if you don’t have ATP synthase then you don’t have life. You could only have proto-life tethered to an energy source.
Are you sure? Have you checked all the research? And, I’m guessing you might find this significant, can you say exactly how life arose?
It is outside of the machine. see stator
I saw a reference to a protein gradient . . .
asauber – But we can judge yours. It’s based on a report you admit you don’t understand.
Well, if you can’t or won’t point to a specific error made in the IPCC reports then it’s hard for us to evaluate your complaint.
I don’t understand why your perceived ability of me to discern the science should have anything to do with a valid point you have to make.
In fact, if you can point out a problem and then capitalise on my inability then surely that is a double win for you.
Well let’s start with this error: assuming the IPCC reports must have scientific value.
Do you assume they have scientific value, in light of the fact you don’t understand them anyway?
Andrew
asauber – Well let’s start with this error: assuming the IPCC reports must have scientific value.
Do you assume they have scientific value, in light of the fact you don’t understand them anyway?
That is not an error in the IPCC reports. You are calling into question my ability to judge the reports. Which is a different issue.
If you can’t point to a specific error in the IPCC reports then fair enough.
JVL:
I can track down the math that refutes the IPCC
CO2 isn’t the issue. The other stuff that comes from animal agriculture- the clear cutting for grazing; the clear cutting to plant for food for livestock- that’s just the tip.
That doesn’t make any sense. Of course melting goes on above freezing. My point is that dirty ice caps and glaciers melt when the temps are BELOW freezing. And there is plenty of research to back that up.
So what? You haven’t shown that the subunits provide any other function. You haven’t shown that unguided evolution can produce the subunits.
Yes
All I can say is that life was intelligently designed.
The stator is what connects the two subunits. It isn’t the protein gradient.
OK, say CO2 doubles, from 280 PPM to 560 PPM, that will only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. That’s it, 0.6 degrees C. That’s about 1 degree F. And that is only if everything else stays the same, which we know doesn’t happen.
The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1
The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 2
The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 3
The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide Part 4
ET – I can track down the math that refutes the IPCC
That’s good then! I wasn’t looking forward to it.
CO2 isn’t the issue. The other stuff that comes from animal agriculture- the clear cutting for grazing; the clear cutting to plant for food for livestock- that’s just the tip.
But those things don’t contribute to the data which strongly implies that average global temperatures are increasing. Excepting that there is less plant cover.
That doesn’t make any sense. Of course melting goes on above freezing. My point is that dirty ice caps and glaciers melt when the temps are BELOW freezing. And there is plenty of research to back that up.
Melting goes on in specific locations when the temperatures at those specific locations are below freezing? That should be easy to back up if you’re right.
So what? You haven’t shown that the subunits provide any other function. You haven’t shown that unguided evolution can produce the subunits.
Yes but the point is you haven’t proven that the subunits don’t have some function. You claimed that ATP synthase is irreducibly complex. I just want to see what evidence you have for that.
All I can say is that life was intelligently designed.
You might be right! But I am still interested in: where are the labs, the tools, the support technologies that would support such an effort.
And, you haven’t said if the design was ‘front loaded’ or if there was/is more frequent interventions. Those models are much different andrequire much different evaluation methods. I’m sure you’d agree.
The stator is what connects the two subunits. It isn’t the protein gradient.
Well, please elucidate. The ‘stator’ might be essential to the current function of the molecule ATP synthase but a) could it have been present but other bits not and there would still be some function and b) are you sure that the two sub-units (as you designate them) had no function whatsoever?
ET- OK, say CO2 doubles, from 280 PPM to 560 PPM, that will only cause an increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees Celsius. That’s it, 0.6 degrees C. That’s about 1 degree F. And that is only if everything else stays the same, which we know doesn’t happen.
Let’s just take your numbers as a base line. How much extra land previously covered in ice or snow would be exposed and thereby become warmer? How would the exposure of that land contribute to further warming? When is a irreversible warming triggered?
Regardless, these issue have been addressed in the IPCC reports. Can you specify a particular error in the reports?
On this topic, I encourage everyone to read the book Atrocities, by Matthew White (2013). The book is organized chronologically, beginning with the Second Persian War (480 BC) and ending with the Second Congo War (2002).
This book should put an end to the a/mat lie that theism is the predominant cause of death and destruction in this world. The truth is much different. A/mats are the predominant cause of death and destruction…and it’s not even a close competition.
Of course I am. You admittedly don’t understand them.
Andrew
asauber – Of course I am. You admittedly don’t understand them.
Too bad you didn’t provide an example of a mistake made in an IPCC report.
Yeah, too bad. It would have made for a vigorously meaningless discussion.
Andrew
JVL, you know quite well that a one sided litany leading to scapegoating and to improper assignment of credit is not well warranted history; it may be straight from Alinsky’s rules for radicals, but that is hardly a commendation. Tell us what Locke was doing in the intro to essay on human understanding sect 5 and by citing Hooker from ecclesiastical polity in Ch 2 Sec 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil govt, knowing the direct line to the US DoI, 1776. Then also tell us what Plato’s warnings in The Laws Bk X and in the Republic indicate about the real problems of both evolutionary materialism and power politics. KF
asauber -Yeah, too bad. It would have made for a vigorously meaningless discussion.
We’ll never know since you chose not to show us what you were talking about.
JVL, BTW, the basic error is in the modelling, and in its projections. Has always been. The trend lines of the projections run well above the actual record, and the notorious hockey stick that tried to get rid of the Medieval climate optimum is well known. There is more, you need to see the leaked information — no it was not hacked — that reveals what was going on. But most of all, as I have noted the structure of such warming as happened is not in agreement with the projections. FYI, computer models are not experiments and we simply do not know enough of the dynamics of climate to do good predictions in the long term. So, the basing of policy on projections with all sorts of issues is itself a major error. KF
The worst crime ever recorded in history was committed by very religious people who did not know or love God:
KF – VL, you know quite well that a one sided litany leading to scapegoating and to improper assignment of credit is not well warranted history; it may be straight from Alinsky’s rules for radicals, but that is hardly a commendation.
I don’t think that anything I cited was unwarranted history. The events I mentioned are well documented and accepted as fact.
Tell us what Locke was doing in the intro to essay on human understanding sect 5 and by citing Hooker from ecclesiastical polity in Ch 2 Sec 5 of his 2nd treatise on civil govt, knowing the direct line to the US DoI, 1776. Then also tell us what Plato’s warnings in The Laws Bk X and in the Republic indicate about the real problems of both evolutionary materialism and power politics.
What does any of that have to do with the hideous persecutions supported and encouraged by the Catholic church during the middle ages against Muslims, Jews and Christians? Not to mention the atrocities perpetrated against the native south Americans?
Kf – BTW, the basic error is in the modelling, and in its projections. Has always been. The trend lines of the projections run well above the actual record, and the notorious hockey stick that tried to get rid of the Medieval climate optimum is well known. There is more, you need to see the leaked information — no it was not hacked — that reveals what was going on.
And what was that exactly? Let’s see the data that wasn’t accounted for.
But most of all, as I have noted the structure of such warming as happened is not in agreement with the projections. FYI, computer models are not experiments and we simply do not know enough of the dynamics of climate to do good predictions in the long term. So, the basing of policy on projections with all sorts of issues is itself a major error.
Okay, so give me a basis upon which you choose not to accept the general climate projections. Is it because ‘we simply do not know enough’? Does that mean you are going to do nothing because, in our view, some of the science is speculative?
JVL, you have to take some responsibility, I have given you more than enough for you to follow up. And, again, there is a secularist myth that feeds into and off antichristian bigotry that needs to be adjusted in light of a more reasonable look at history and key documents — which, when presented with as a beginning, you have refused to do. On the tangential matter of climate debates, I have pointed you to a very specific source. To deal with crooked yardstick problems, a very specific — and ongoing — holocaust is on the table. KF
Kf – you have to take some responsibility, I have given you more than enough for you to follow up. And, again, there is a secularist myth that feeds into and off antichristian bigotry that needs to be adjusted in light of a more reasonable look at history and key documents — which, when presented with as a beginning, you have refused to do.
I have presented indisputable historical events. Events which you have chosen to sidestep.
I have a lot of very good and dear Christian friends. But they don’t just ignore the historical record. Why do you do that?
What will you say to your ancestors when you meet them in the afterlife and they tell you about how badly they were abused and used by Christians? What will you say then? Will you look them in the eye and tell them that they didn’t understand the real story?
JVL:
Try google- Even National Geographic agrees
I don’t have to prove a negative. It’s dumb to even ask. Not only that it doesn’t matter anyway- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
JVL:
Their math is off as evidenced at the links I provided.
ET- Try google- Even National Geographic agrees
Well this article makes it sound that man-made affects are even more affecting global warming. Because of air pollution.
I don’t have to prove a negative. It’s dumb to even ask. Not only that it doesn’t matter anyway- Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions
Aside from the fact that the article you link to is over a decade old it states?
In fact, the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device, anymore than the ability of parts of a mousetrap to act as paperweights has to do with the trap function. And the existence of the ability to pump proteins tells us nil about how the rotary propulsion function might come to be in a Darwinian fashion. For example, suppose that the same parts of the flagellum that were unexpectedly discovered to act as a protein pump were instead unexpectedly discovered to be, say, a chemical factory for synthesizing membrane lipids. Would that alternative discovery affect Kenneth Miller’s reasoning at all? Not in the least. His reasoning would still be simply that a part of the flagellum had a separate function. But how would a lipid-making factory explain rotary propulsion? In the same way that protein pumping explains it—it doesn’t explain it at all.
Which is, after all, just an assertion. A variation of: I don’t understand it so I don’t believe it.
Their math is off as evidenced at the links I provided.
Well, maybe. Perhaps you’d be interested in this:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/201.....-mike.html
PS: JVL, I pause to highlight just one point that surfaces how little you have actually pondered the issues in hand. The notion that you can dismiss the challenge to get to a first living cell by calling forth un-named, unobserved “precursors” when the thorniness and centrality of the challenge is notorious, itself speaks volumes. Recall, the challenge includes invention of alphanumerical code, plus execution machinery joined to a metabolic reaction network of ferocious complexity joined to a kinematic von Neumann self replication facility. There is a reason that the Nobel prize for this stands un-claimed. This is not a domain where glib quips are good enough. And BTW, you have utterly failed to consider the issue I highlighted at 66 above this morning, and have utterly failed to come to grips with the linked course materials I raised long since, so all your accusations of side stepping historical issues achieves is to expose you as willing to attack the man with manifest falsehoods rather than address the merits. What on earth do you think the points raised by Bernard Lewis, just for one, are about? Also, what part of predictive failure of models is hard to understand? A pattern emerges and not to your advantage.
PPS: Notice how the roots of morality thus of rights and duties, justice and much more are pivotal. This to is a subject that evolutionary materialistic scientism simply cannot address as it has no IS capable of grounding OUGHT at world-root level. Which is the level where the two must be inextricably fused, once we have ourselves as morally governed creatures, indeed even our reasoning is governed by duties to truth, logic, warrant and so much more, communicated by that inner voice we call conscience. Evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers are forced to hold that that voice is a delusion, and that our sense of being responsibly, rationally free is also delusional. This immediately collapses in self-referential absurdity, as it undermines all knowing, reasoning and responsibility. Of course, this is not going to be acknowledged, and we have seen cases where when significant evolutionists themselves point it out, this is consistently dodged. But it really is critical. And, it stands so that the only serious candidate is the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Consistently, attempts to go elsewhere to bridge the IS-OUGHT gap fail (e.g. as above by undermining the whole life of the mind ending in self referential incoherence), leading to sobering challenges.
PPPS: WUWT here is a start https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/06/why-climate-models-run-hot/ also here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/11/quote-of-the-week-nature-on-the-failure-of-climate-models/ try here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/26/more-on-currys-climate-model-study-saying-they-are-not-useful-as-projections-for-how-the-21st-century-will-actually-evolve/ cf also Roy Spencer here http://www.drroyspencer.com/20.....-be-wrong/ . . . just for a point of reference.
Barry Arrington @ 13
According the the OT, God wiped out almost all life, human and otherwise, on the surface of the earth in the Great Flood. That’s rather more than just some theists killing some people. The atheist dictators of the twentieth century could only have dreamed of such a body count. I’m assuming that, as a Christian, you believe the Great Flood actually occurred, of course.
Empathy and The Golden Rule come into it as well but, yes, more mutual consideration and respect for interests could lead to fewer premature deaths.
KF @ 126: “…there is a secularist myth that feeds into and off antichristian bigotry…”
Sad but true.
Seversky,
I think that’s hard for many orthodox Christians to understand as well. What else could a Christian say other than “causing the flood was a moral act, but that is beyond human understanding”?
john_a_designer @ 26
Once again, from my perspective, the truth of a descriptive claim about the world lies in the extent to which it can be observed to correspond to the facet of the observable world it purports to describe. For example, if I say “that car is red” you can check the car to see if it is red and thereby determine whether my claim is true or false. Only claims about what ‘is’ can be true or false according to this concept of truth.
If you say to me “it’s wrong to take something that does not belong to you” that is not making a claim about the way the world is, it is telling me how I ought to behave, according to you. Because they’re not claims about how the world is, moral claims are neither true nor false. They’re a different category of claim.
As for Ted Bundy, he was a narcissistic, psychopathic serial killer and it was a shame he didn’t get what was coming to him sooner than it did. That said, his argument is the same one that has been peddled here many times before, to whit, in the absence of some authoritative prohibition, why shouldn’t a psychopath rape and murder if it gives him pleasure? The proper response is that potential victims and their family and friends would take no pleasure at all from that prospect and, since their purpose is to prevent harm and not cause it and they vastly outnumber the psychopaths, their preferences should prevail. On that basis alone, they are fully entitled to do whatever is necessary to prevent the Bundys of this world from ever committing another offense – up to and including the death penalty.
ellijacket @ 29
I am asserting that all moral claims are subjective, that there is no objective, standard morality against which all such claims can be measured. All we can do is to try and agree amongst ourselves which moral guidelines are beneficial and which we can accept as binding on ourselves for the good of all.
I know that’s unacceptable to many who would prefer the simplicity of divine command morality. It’s a lot easier to be just told what is right and wrong rather than to have to try and work it out for yourselves. From my perspective, however, even if there is a God, his morality is just another individual’s opinion although He is presumed to have rather more power to enforce His views than I have.
I should also say that I’m extremely wary of absolutism, of any claim to be in possession of some absolute truth whether religious belief or political ideology. It seems to me that, in the hands of many, they become a license to whatever is felt to be necessary to further them. That way lies terrorist attacks like 9/11, ethnic cleansings, genocides and Holocausts.
Dean_from_Ohio @ 59
It seems that atheists are suffering rather more of that kind of discrimination than religious groups. Fine examples of “kindness, selflessness and self-sacrifice”.
daves:
Seriously?
The author of the passage in Genesis gave a reason for the flood. There’s no indication that the author thought it was beyond human understanding. Nowhere in the bible is the flood presented as beyond human understanding.
Not only that, but you utterly ignore the Jewish component, as if Jews had nothing whatsoever to say about the flood.
Please try to do better.
KF – I pause to highlight just one point that surfaces how little you have actually pondered the issues in hand. The notion that you can dismiss the challenge to get to a first living cell by calling forth un-named, unobserved “precursors” when the thorniness and centrality of the challenge is notorious, itself speaks volumes.
No one says it happened overnight! Sure the process ended up with the complexities of a cell but it would have started with simple molecules.
Besides, what’s the alternative? Some uber-biologist (or more likely a whole research facility) for which we have no evidence whatsoever? Where were the laboratories? The power generators? The living quarters? There would have to be a personnel department of course, :-). Okay, maybe this band of scientists were operating out of a space ship well . . . where are they now? Do you really think that some alien race decided to seed life on Earth and then just disappeared? What would the point of that be?
I’m sorry but what I perceive your position to be (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is to fantastical and lacks any kind of empirical evidence.
Recall, the challenge includes invention of alphanumerical code, plus execution machinery joined to a metabolic reaction network of ferocious complexity joined to a kinematic von Neumann self replication facility. There is a reason that the Nobel prize for this stands un-claimed. This is not a domain where glib quips are good enough.
So where are the beings you seem to claim did all this work?
And BTW, you have utterly failed to consider the issue I highlighted at 66 above this morning, and have utterly failed to come to grips with the linked course materials I raised long since, so all your accusations of side stepping historical issues achieves is to expose you as willing to attack the man with manifest falsehoods rather than address the merits.
But they are not falsehoods. And, as I already pointed out, they don’t contradict what you are wanting to discuss. But they are real events. I don’t understand how you can just ignore them.
What on earth do you think the points raised by Bernard Lewis, just for one, are about? Also, what part of predictive failure of models is hard to understand? A pattern emerges and not to your advantage.
I don’t see any models failing to be honest. Nor do I see any credible predictions that they will fail; assuming you’re talking about climate change. Sometimes I have a hard time following you.
Anyway, I won’t respond to your diatribe against ‘materialism’ or your conviction that God (whoever that is) is the answer to all the world’s woes. As I’ve said, I have some very good Christian friends who agree with me that we should work within the system of laws that we have, that science and history should not be denied and that we should treat each other with kindness and understanding.
Mung, it seems that there is a refusal to acknowledge the principle that the God of the Bible is ultimately, judge of all flesh. Wherein, we face the issue of moral accountability, individually and collectively, through the judgement of consequences, that of warning (starting with conscience), and active direct intervention. Where, reprobation of willfully rebellious individuals and communities is a judgement of leaving one to the consequences of a march of insistently ruinous folly. Also, I find that there is typically a refusal to take a balanced view, e.g. that when the Egyptians faced 10 plagues, the Israelites faced 10 tests, or that Israel itself was judged for its sins as a nation. Of course, we can also readily see that the OT is the hebraic scriptures (though differently organised than the Tanakh) and if what is routinely said about Christians today by skeptics were to be extended to the Jews, we would at once see just how much bigotry is involved. Yes, there are difficulties and challenges with the OT and the NT, which we must conclude are there precisely as it was deemed necessary to confront us with God as judge of the nations, ante- and post- diluvian. Yes, there are major difficulties and ugly scenes, there is slaughter, there are things that may and do shock and pain us to the point of doubt or deep concern, but if we look within, we can see implications of the stubbornness of our own hearts too, e.g. the problem of ruthless hereditary clan warfare that can literally lead to genocidal attempts 1,000 years on — which, we again confront with the radical Islamists, and which the Romans faced with Carthage to the point of having to hunt down Hannibal in exile. It seems that with complicity of our media and elites, thee is a refusal to recognise that the most persecuted, most oppressed group of people in the world today is Christians. Indeed the martyrdom total for the 100 years just past easily exceeds that for the previous 19 together. But of course, much of that is so easily hidden by wrenching the term “fundamentalist” out of its rightful context of Christians of 100 years ago trying to preserve essentials of the historic Christian faith in the face of apostasy and converting it into a term of contempt and scapegoating. All of this, helps us to see the degree of hostility or outright hate that underlies ever so much rhetoric and media coverage or even academic presentations today. KF
PS: many seem hell-bent on casting the Judaeo-Christian tradition in the role of the source of tyranny. This reflects a failure to take a balanced view of scripture, theology and history, including that of the rise of modern liberty and constitutional, lawful democracy, and also the even more basic point that the overwhelming testimony of the scripture is that the task of government is to guard and nurture the civil peace of justice. Where, we so easily forget that modern representational democracy was not possible until we had a literacy revolution driven by print and an era of deep reflection that led to a framing for such an experiment, joined to the rise of wisespread newspapers etc that allowed the formation of a public with a public opinion that could be informed, i.e. late C17 as noted briefly above. And, in precisely the states of Christendom we saw the emergence of modern liberty over the next 150 years, specifically nurtured in scriptural soil through the concept of interposition of lower magistrates also viewed as called by God to govern; hence the line from Vindicae to the Dutch DoI of 1581 and onward to the US founding which for cause strongly echoes these works and the chain that follows through Rutherford and Locke etc. All of which is distorted, twisted, dismissed and suppressed in our media and education systems today. No wonder we so lightly play with the fire of undermining the foundations of liberty today. Such does not bode well for our future.
PPS: Let me bring forward 66 as it has been buried under a pile-on of attack posts thereafter:
–> Here is a test, what is the significance of King Alfred’s Book of Dooms, and how does it begin, explicitly laying down as the foundation of English law? (Hint, what does this then do to your view of Judge Roy Moore’s monument to the decalogue? Would it have made a dime’s difference to the skeptics and deriders if he had cited it from Alfred? What are the implications of refusing to respect and learn from history, twisting key historically rooted symbols into scapegoats? Why do you think that the cultural marxists and their agit prop operators and foot soldiers are so busily attacking key symbols rooted in the history of our civilisation, creating a polarised mob mentality? From Plato’s parable of the ship of state, where is such likely to end? Do we really want to go there?)
F/N: here is my discussion here at UD on the roots of democracy as informed by King Alfred’s Book of Dooms: https://uncommondescent.com/courts/going-to-the-roots-of-lawfulness-and-justice-by-way-of-king-alfreds-book-of-dooms/ . KF
F/N2: Let me cite from Archbishop Samuel Langton on the lawful state and lawful magistrate, in Magna Carta, June 15, 2015 as enumerated by Blackstone:
This should be a clue.
KF
From Wikipedia:
I guess the Catholic Church wasn’t a big fan of the Barons getting too uppity.
Mung,
To clarify, I’m speaking of modern-day Christians struggling to understand the flood here. And I’m aware that there is a stated reason for God causing it. However, I know that at least some Christians have a difficult time with God bringing about a disaster which caused the death of all but 8 people on the planet. Presumably infants, unborn children, and the mentally disabled were included in those deaths. Do you find any of this troubling?
You are right that I didn’t say anything about the “Jewish component”. Could you elaborate? Virtually everyone on the planet died, Jewish or not.
KF@ 83
“J-Mac, again, you have slipped away from the framework and pushed in another context. We can infer from such a country that its value of life has been corrupted, which will have implications all across public policy and more; matters not if it has had Christian roots.
I’d like to remind you that the framework regarding 800+ million of abortions per year is your initiative. I have simply questioned whether you had implied that atheists were responsible for most or all of the abortions. You refused to answer directly this question and now you’ve unloaded the burden of proof on me… with your unfounded insinuations that one religious county of almost 100% affiliation and 800.000 abortions per year proves nothing and so on…
Christianity claims 2.5 billion worldwide
Why don’t you look up the counties with 90-100% Christian membership, and the number of abortions in each of the country? Maybe your ignorance the the facts you have been refusing to accept will change…though I doubt that very much…
BTW: If you blame corruption within the church or religion, who is to blame? Also, that is not the true reason to blame atheists for the skyrocketing number of abortions performed mainly by Christians, is it?
daves@ 136
“I think that’s hard for many orthodox Christians to understand as well. What else could a Christian say other than “causing the flood was a moral act, but that is beyond human understanding”?
It’s not hard at all to understand or justify the flood as an act of justice if one takes into consideration at least 2 facts:
1. God, as the creator of the universe and the laws governing it, is not restricted by “time”; i.e. past, present and future “times” exist to him “at the same time” and are accessible to Him, if he chooses to (this is what Einstein claimed based on his theory of general relativity).
2. Flood was an act of justice; i.e. similar to the act of justice when unrepentant criminals are executed.
JVL:
Right not CO2.
I don’t care how old it is it still stands. You cannot account for either subunit via unguided evolution. You don’t even know how to test the claim unguided evolution didit.
And time will tell if Jonas is right or not. So far not one of the dire predictions of the alarmists has come true.
YVL,
you will recall that Magna Carta went back and forth several times until it was established. You have — yet again — played the half-truths game on a tangent, demonstrating the pattern of problems.
FYI, even the most ardent Catholics (and I am Protestant) will acknowledge that many popes have erred or worse, indeed there is such a concept as anti-popes.
The point I highlighted is not the silly strawman claim that Christendom’s history is sinless and error free and struggle free.
If you had bothered to seriously read my course web page that would have been utterly clear.
The real point is of course that Magna Carta is foundational, and particularly 39 and 40 per the Blackstone numbering. Even that is significant as Blackstone was crucial to the development of law. So, here we find the Archbishop of Canterbury pioneering principles of liberty in a foundational document for common law, building on the deposit of Alfred. The all too prevalent scapegoating of Christians and the church and the scriptures as enemies of freedom and the civil peace of justice fails yet again.
Thus we see a deeper background, where in the days before modern democracy was feasible, the lawful state in defence of the civil peace of justice was being championed in a key state document of Christendom.
And the question is, were you being calculatedly deceitful above, or just utterly ignorant of Magna Carta’s importance and history then failing to do proper due diligence before posting a handy Wikipedia talking point?
Neither horn of that dilemma will do you any good.
Going yet deeper, the US founders and framers were very aware that Athenian democracy spectacularly demonstrated its instability and failed, with Alcibiades and co playing key roles. This is part of the context of why they spoke of a republic, one with democratic character with checks and balances to guard liberty down to the minority of one.
So, we see by 1215 the lawful state based on a corpus of law, and by 1579, 1581 and the 1640’s a moving beyond the error and indeed heresy of an absolute king who claimed to rule by Divine right without effective accountability to God or man or spokesmen for both [how can someone read even Nathan the prophet confronting David over his adultery and disguised murder and imagine this . . . much less a huge prophetic corpus in OT and clear linked teachings in the NT]. Thus, we see how it was in fact hammered out under Christian auspices that rule of law expressed in a corpus pivoting on justice prevails over arbitrary rule of the tyrant or the oligarchy.
then as we move to the UD founding, this principle of upholding the civil peace of justice was being transformed into the first state with democratic character that pivots on a Constitution that sets out to guard liberties. In that context the wisdom of the Baptist dissenters insisting on a bill of rights speaks for itself. Though, today such has been in significant part wrenched utterly out of its proper meaning by those with dubious agendas. Thus the urgent need for reform and the impact of the plumbline test of the global abortion holocaust of 800+ millions and mounting up at a million per week. Those who fail to get this straight inadvertently expose how their thinking has been en-darkened even while they imagine themselves enlightened.
And that has a very direct Scriptural reference from the prince of the OT prophets:
Yes, from 700+BC and beyond, the Judaeo-Christian tradition was clearly upholding justice and challenging oppression.
That is the reason why when we see the sort of one-sided litany and scapegoating that are so common today, that tells us a lot about the secularists and their agendas, JVL.
Not one bit of it good.
Indeed we can take what we see as a warning about their intent.
KF
J-Mac,
Is the relevant point here that God could tell “ahead of time” that everyone except Noah’s family deserved to die, based on what sinful acts they had committed or would commit in the future? Including infants, the unborn, and the mentally disabled?
If everyone who died was evil (on the order of Ted Bundy, for example), then I could understand the justice behind the flood. A world of perhaps millions of Ted Bundys [or at least millions deserving the death penalty] and only 8 righteous people is beyond my ken, I have to admit.
J-Mac, when Christians has strong influence on law making and coyurt rooms, teh unborn were protected. Once the secular humanists and rellow travellers prevaZiled, such was removed and instead insitutions were warped to promote, enable and disguise holocaust even now in progress. Your attempt to blame Christians for that corruption of law and insitutions fails. yes, there are many who profess the Christian faith who are personally caught up in the horror, they are ill instructed, lack proper support and are participating in wrong. What you failed to mention is that there are also millions of Christians who stood up 40+ years ago and are still standing up to make a difference, including the whole crisis pregnancy movement and much more. Of course the annual march in defence of unborn life in Washington DC only gets a sneeringly bad press in the major, corrupt media houses, when it gets a mention. That too speaks. We again see the one sided rhetoric game that tries to turn Christians into scapegoats. Aren’t you going to do better? KF
ouch on typos
KF,
The typos did not affect the substance of the commentary. Thanks.
dave’s @153,
“Is the relevant point here that God could tell “ahead of time” that everyone except Noah’s family deserved to die, based on what sinful acts they had committed or would commit in the future? Including infants, the unborn, and the mentally disabled?”
Imagine YOU ARE in charge and you watch the earth from outside of time…Generation, after generation goes on, and nothing good grows out of the children…if they survive at all, because their parents have sacrificed some of their children to blood thirsty gods…
What would you do?
J-Mac,
That’s hard to say—I find it very difficult to put myself in that situation.
Assuming I am/was watching Earth from outside of time, I could have foreseen what a fiasco this whole project would turn out to be, so perhaps I wouldn’t have embarked on it. Even after starting over with Noah’s family, a large majority of people [in present times] end up burning for eternity. From my human perspective, it would seem that the initial act of creation would have led to vast amounts of suffering.
KF @154
“When Christians has strong influence on law making and coyurt rooms, teh unborn were protected.
You are delusional KF…
When religious law making prohibited legal abortions in many Christian countries, illegal abortions, death due non-medially supervised abortions and abroad abortion travel skyrocketed…
Also, the unwanted children burden on many governments became unmanageable…
In my view, religion has failed at the root of the problem…
J-Mac, you are citing the talking points that were successfully used to create the atmosphere that has enabled holocaust. Subsequently it leaked out that much of the argument was highly questionable. IIRC, many of the former illegal abortionists simply came out into the open. Further, Ms Norma McCorvey, the example used to push the matter in the US supreme Court, according to her later testimony was a set-up. BTW so was the Scopes trial. There is a vast difference between when something has become even widespread and when it is now sanctioned under colour of law, as the law teaches for good or ill. The progressive corruption of law and various institutions backed by agit prop and deception promoting benumbing of conscience is baking in the dynamics of a march of folly of our civilisation heading over the cliff. KF
PS: Put it this way, the unborn child in the womb, is it a human life with therefore fundamental equality of nature that implies unalienable rights, starting with the first, life? If so, the debates about the further crimes of abortionists using methods that harm the women they are exploiting and inducing to be party to killing their own posterity just compounds their wickedness — and there was a Dr Kimmel was it who exemplifies this same problem even with abortion being promoted under false colour of law. If your answer is no, that is the real problem, you have been led to imagine that posterity in the womb is sub human. Compare the exchange in Luke between Elizabeth with John in the 6th month and Mary with Jesus within the first, and you will easily see where that notion did NOT come from.
dave’s @159
“That’s hard to say—I find it very difficult to put myself in that situation.
Well, now you know how God could feel…
“Assuming I am/was watching Earth from outside of time, I could have foreseen what a fiasco this whole project would turn out to be, so perhaps I wouldn’t have embarked on it.
Good point, but remember that God gave everyone free will… If He had known, or chosen to know, everything in advance, then He would have been guilty of all the consequences of His knowing it ahead of “time”…
Even after starting over with Noah’s family, a large majority of people end up burning for eternity. From my human perspective, it would seem that the initial act of creation would have led to vast amounts of suffering.
If you are referring here to the teaching of hell, then I can assure you that Christianity is leaning toward non-literal hell, without physical suffering…at least that’s what Pope JP II initiated…
PPS: Or, are we back to the radical amorality and relativism of evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers so that rights have no real meaning. Other than “the highest right is might” — exactly what Plato exposed 2350+ years ago, and exactly the point of the OP.
KF
“J-Mac, you are citing the talking points that were successfully used to create the atmosphere that has enabled holocaust. Subsequently it leaked out that much of the argument was highly questionable.
Questionable???
Why did the Catholic church signed the concordat with the Nazis?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Why did the church blessed troops on both sides of the conflict?
Why should anybody be surprised that German Christians had no problem exterminating Jews, other Christians, on the other side of the conflict, it they believed God was with them by the blessing of their church and the their spiritual leaders?
J-M: Nope, you also misunderstand responsibility. I have a son, who I gave life to knowing that he too will stumble as we all do. I have taken time and effort to lead him towards the right. But he is a truly free being and may choose wrongs that could break my heart. He is responsible for doing the right, even when it is foreseeable that he will do wrong sometimes. However, the possibility that he will use heart and mind to live by the truth in love opens up a world of good that a mere programmed robot could never attain to . . . and as it turns out, struggles and stumbles notwithstanding, he is making me very proud of the path of life he is treading — e.g. a potential future Premier if he wants it. KF
KF,
You are confused again!
I’m not pro-abortion…
J-Mac, have you read the course page that addresses the underlying issue? Are you aware that Christians can and do make mistakes or can live far below their principles? But that is already to highlight that there is a basis to rebuke wrong and call to reformation — as BTW happened twice in our civilisation with slavery. By utter contrast, the highest right is might — an implication of evolutionary materialism and the like — leads straight to amorality and nihilism. Which BTW is exactly what Nazism represented, and it having seized power, church leaders were forced to deal with nihilism in control of the organs of power in a major power. They had a choice of evils and we need to find it in ourselves to try to understand what that is like when millions of lives are on the line. KF
J-Mac, your arguments above are enabling of the mass holocaust of abortion. KF
KF@ 167
Do you think that some mistakes are unforgivable or God’s grace is unlimited?
PS: Heine, predicting what would happen to Germany on the trend of apostasy already present and powerful in his day:
KF @168
“J-Mac, your arguments above are enabling of the mass holocaust of abortion. KF
I think you got me confused with the god’s at the Vatican who insist on prohibition of contraceptives…
This also makes them responsible for the holocaust of HIV taking its toll in Africa because they insist using condoms is immoral…
Imagine yourself living their, in a village or town, where there is only children alive because all adults died because HIV was spread because these people listen to the gods in Vatican and refused to use condoms…
If this continues, the number of victims due to this prohibition will surpass the number of victims of the holocaust…if it hasn’t happened already…
Your denial is pitiful…
J-Mac, please read what I already wrote. I note to you that condoms are only a marginal protection against HIV, because under realistic use conditions, we will see failure rates of order 10%. using such under those circumstances 10 times implies a likelihood of being protected all 10 times of about 35%, in effect comparable to playing Russian Roulette with two loaded chambers in a six-shooter. A far saner solution was advocated in Kenya, where socio-cultural forces and the principle of responsible freedom were harnessed to promote what I have called ABc, abstain [you will not die], be faithful to your wife or husband [and, yes, they encouraged fairly early marriage down to 17 – 19 . . . ], if all else fails understand that the needless risks you insist on can be ameliorated by using a condom, but a habit of exposure to needless risk undermines the overall protection. their symbol for the campaign, coffins — rather similar to the anti-smoking campaigns that worked in the end, after oh get a filter tip did not. In the Caribbean, the “party hat,” made freely available in rum shops etc. Again, the issue of responsible freedom arises: are or are we not free, morally governed creatures? Now, I do not agree with the views of the Catholic Church on contraception, but I do want to point out that in too many cases how something like the oral contraceptive worked, was by inducing a very early abortion, and the IUD may have been much the same. That in some cases was disguised by redefining conception as implantation. We are looking at some very serious issues and again the pivotal one is this: is the unborn child a human life, a human being? KF
KF @172
Is saving few or even one life, worth the effort?
KF
Waiting for your answer @169
KF @@172
I do not agree with the views of the Catholic Church on contraception
So, you must agree that they are at least partially responsible for for the rising number of abortions?
PS: I was once berated on radio here, live, for pointing to the Kenya example at that time (i gather their approach has since been beaten into the ground by the usual suspects). Several years later, with HIV infection numbers rising, HIV educators took a much more sober view of the “party hat” approach. As always it seems, the pivotal issue is are we morally governed, responsibly and rationally free creatures. the scapegoat the Christians approach fails, yet again.
JMAC, really! KF
Latex condoms, used consistently and correctly, are 98-99% effective in preventing HIV
http://www.aidschicago.org/res.....w_fact.pdf
You must have been reading the Vatican propaganda…
Second request KF@ 167
Do you think that some mistakes are unforgivable or God’s grace is unlimited?
KF,
Do you think God is happy with your religion?
Do you think that blessing both sides of the war conflict came from God?
If yes, please elaborate…
If not, where did it come from and why?
J-Mac, do you see the used correctly and consistently — vs what happens realistically with mostly young people and the like who are taking risks they should not be — issue, and are you aware that there is a significant failure rate issue? KF
PS Since you want to play at SS ticklers, I note that suicide once successful is obviously irreversible, that insistently assigning the convicting promptings of the Spirit to the devil blocks the means of being led to repentance, that many will naturally pray for their country men in a war [and will almost certainly be confused given the dominance of agit prop in wars . . . but again see the White Rose martyrs], and so forth. All increasingly tangential and closely tied to the scapegoat the Christians agendas.
You are delusional KF…
I know I’m not going to get a straight answer from you, so I’m not going to waste my time…I’m going for a bike ride…
Bye bye!
J-Mac, projection, and likely the crooked yardstick as standard of straight and right length problem. KF
ET – I don’t care how old it is it still stands. You cannot account for either subunit via unguided evolution. You don’t even know how to test the claim unguided evolution didit.
Well, I have asked for your alternative. Why don’t you post it?
And time will tell if Jonas is right or not. So far not one of the dire predictions of the alarmists has come true.
I’m not interested in the alarmists. But the science does interest me.
KF – you will recall that Magna Carta went back and forth several times until it was established. You have — yet again — played the half-truths game on a tangent, demonstrating the pattern of problems.
I don’t think you really get my point so I shall attempt to be more clear . . .
The Christian ‘Church’ has clearly done some good things for humanity but it has also done/sponsored/supported some pretty hideous things. I don’t think it’s fair or honest or accurate to portray it as a purely positive influence on the history of mankind. Just like all human constructs it has its good and bad points.
The point I highlighted is not the silly strawman claim that Christendom’s history is sinless and error free and struggle free.
But you said some of the factual events I posted were akin to falsehoods.
And the question is, were you being calculatedly deceitful above, or just utterly ignorant of Magna Carta’s importance and history then failing to do proper due diligence before posting a handy Wikipedia talking point?
My point was that the church (as it was at the time) couldn’t even agree on what was a positive development. The Archbishop of Canterbury helped construct Magna Carta and the Pope annulled it.
Yes, from 700+BC and beyond, the Judaeo-Christian tradition was clearly upholding justice and challenging oppression.
But that just isn’t true!! You are ignoring historical events where the church was instrumental in opposing universal justice and supporting oppression. I am not talking about ideology, I’m talking about actual practice.
That is the reason why when we see the sort of one-sided litany and scapegoating that are so common today, that tells us a lot about the secularists and their agendas, JVL.
I am asking you to acknowledge all the events. I am asking you not to be one-sided.
KF- when Christians has strong influence on law making and coyurt rooms, teh unborn were protected.
I rather suspect that among the killings perpetrated by the Crusaders when retaking Jerusalem there were some unborn that were killed.
I also suspect that that was the case when the Cathers were mindlessly slaughtered and when the Jews were blatantly persecuted in Europe.
The ideology does not dictate practice.
yes, there are many who profess the Christian faith who are personally caught up in the horror, they are ill instructed, lack proper support and are participating in wrong.
Yes but many of the atrocities that I am referring to were sanctioned and supported by the Catholic Church!! It was proscribed behaviour!
J-Mac – Imagine YOU ARE in charge and you watch the earth from outside of time…Generation, after generation goes on, and nothing good grows out of the children…if they survive at all, because their parents have sacrificed some of their children to blood thirsty gods…
What would you do?
Let me see .. . . I’m an all knowing, all powerful, loving creator. And I feel that some of my created beings are being quite naughty. And they are raising their kids to be naughty as well. So, I could punish the parents and save the kids who are not at fault. I could let them all wallow in nastiness until they learn the wickedness of their ways. I could go an create a new planet and try again (wondering what I had done wrong).
Oh wait, I know! I will kill thousands if not millions of them, even the children, because it all didn’t go according to my preconceived idea (a bit confusing since I’m outside of time) of what was right. I gave them free will and they didn’t do what I wanted! And I won’t just snuff them out quickly and painlessly; I’ll make them suffer through a great flood which will also destroy all the arable land and forests. And I will leave only a very few people to populate the entire planet again. Even though, as an omniscient being, I know full well that less that ten individuals is not enough genetic variation to ensure a viable population.
So God is vindictive when beings he gave free will to don’t behave the way he wanted? Is that really the message?
@188
“…I’m an all knowing…”
Who said that? Not me…
There is a difference between being all knowing and allowing the events to unfold due to free will…
Can you see the difference?
JVL,
stop lying by misrepresenting and projecting — speaking in disregard to truth in hope of profiting by what you say or suggest being taken as true.
At no point have I ever claimed or implied sinless perfection or even a lot less for the Christian church or — more relevant to what I have spoken to — Christendom.
Had you bothered to read from my linked course page (not to mention things above) you would have seen this from Bernard Lewis, from his essay on the roots of muslim rage:
And long before you got to that, this is how the introduction begins:
You owe this blog an apology for deceitful rhetorical practice.
What I did do above is captured in key part at 66, which is conveniently buried under a lot of further questionable commentary, much of it of tangential nature at best:
It is high time that a more responsible view of the roots of modern liberty and democracy was taken by secularists in all sorts of contexts. A more sober assessment of the critical moral failure of evolutionary materialist secularism and its fellow travellers starting with the IS-OUGHT gap would also help a lot. Plato knew this 2350 years ago, as was pointed out.
KF
F/N: BTW, I suspect a fairer reading of what happened in the taking of Jerusalem in the first crusade — which recall was a counter-offensive to what had happened esp after the defeats of Byzantium c 1070,and in the context of mass slaughter, kidnapping and enslavement of pilgrims, continuing 400 years of Jihad expansionism — is the ill-disciplined behaviour of armies of that era. IIRC, they displeased their own commanders who had offered refuge to at least some of the slaughtered. Again, see my comment at 66 above on the wider context. Observe that an atrocity from 1,000 years ago is trotted out as a capital example, while say the objections the Hindus of India would have to the Jihad are forgotten, and the democides of over 100 millions by secularist regimes in the past century hardly come up for mention. As for the ongoing holocaust of the unborn, cumulatively 800+ millions and mounting up at a further million per week by Guttmacher and UN figures, that is enabled not seen as something to be addressed for what it is. It is that imbalance and that scapegoating and targetting of Christians (who happen to be the most persecuted group in the world today, with martyrdoms across the past century dwarfing the previous 19 taken together . . . ) that are so revealing of the underlying utterly hostile mindset. KF
JVL:
Intelligent Design offers the only testable model. And evolution by means of Intelligent Design is exemplified in genetic algorithms.
So the question is- what is the alternative to Intelligent Design?
J-Mac – There is a difference between being all knowing and allowing the events to unfold due to free will…
Can you see the difference?
Look, if God wants us to have free will then he just needs to leave us get on with things. If he’s likely to step in at some point and say: no, no, no this is not what I wanted then he’s not committed to free will. Then we’re just his experimental puppets.
And if God is ‘out-of-time’ then he knew what was going to happen before hand.
It just doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.
KF – stop lying by misrepresenting and projecting — speaking in disregard to truth in hope of profiting by what you say or suggest being taken as true.
I don’t think I’ve lied at all. I’ve merely brought up some historical events which, I think, show that the Christian Church (as a collective whole) is a fallible, man-made and man-directed institution which has done some good and has done some bad. You covered some of the good things, I brought up some bad things.
At no point have I ever claimed or implied sinless perfection or even a lot less for the Christian church or — more relevant to what I have spoken to — Christendom.
Well, then what are you complaining about?
Look, the subject of the thread was about violence and I thought it was fair to bring up some cases of violence promoted and supported and carried out by Christians.
ET – Intelligent Design offers the only testable model. And evolution by means of Intelligent Design is exemplified in genetic algorithms.
So the question is- what is the alternative to Intelligent Design?
But what do you mean by Intelligent Design specifically? It is an on going thing or was there a one-off intervention? Those two variations would have much different testable predictions don’t you think? It’s hard for me to say since I haven’t tried to create a design hypothesis. I’m just asking what your design hypothesis is.
JVL, bland denial will not save your credibility. KF
PS: Just in case some will not follow the thread, JVL, 186 . . . and the “concession” that the Christian Faith/Christendom has done some good, in this context is little more than a dismissive distraction while the rhetorical knife is slipped in:
KF
How is offering my opinion lying?
I mentioned some historical events in line with the theme of violence.
I offered my opinion as to what those events say about Christianity.
We disagree. It happens.
JVL, doubling down, to further project a destructive misrepresentation put up in the teeth of duties of care to truth, fairness and more. You obviously did not read what I linked or even what I put up in 66 with any care, twisting me into a handy strawman target to push into the scapegoated category. I called you on it above, you tried to pretend you did nothing wrong. I put up the highlighted words in which you lied about me. Your next move: but it’s just my opinion. FYI, you do not have a right to misrepresent another person by speaking with disregard to truth about them, especially in order to caricature them to win an argument. Worse, the wider context is that you are enabling a destructive radical secularist evolutionary materialist agenda that because it has no answer to the IS-OUGHT gap, has sought to smear ethical theism in our civilisation, the better to advance might and manipulation make “right,” “truth,” “justice,” etc. In short, exactly the amorality- and nihilism- driven, domineering factions Plato warned against 2350+ years ago. Repeat: no, you have no right to put forth and double down on an “opinion” that is in disregard of truth and sets out to caricature and smear another. And down that slippery slope of strawmannising, scapegoating, polarising and demonising lies incitement to the exact sort of violence that the OP warns against. Stop it, now. Apologise to the blog, then do better. KF
KF – doubling down, to further project a destructive misrepresentation put up in the teeth of duties of care to truth, fairness and more.
A misrepresentation of historical events? Maybe but . . . the information is freely available and people can check it out for themselves.
You obviously did not read what I linked or even what I put up in 66 with any care, twisting me into a handy strawman target to push into the scapegoated category.
Why are you taking this all so personally? I don’t consider your comments about what you perceive to be my position personally. I just disagree with you, that’s all.
I called you on it above, you tried to pretend you did nothing wrong. I put up the highlighted words in which you lied about me.
I lied about you? Really? I just offered my opinion. In fact I pointed out that what I was saying was not contradicting what your were saying. I just felt that it was worth considering some historical events. Obviously, in my opinion.
Your next move: but it’s just my opinion. FYI, you do not have a right to misrepresent another person by speaking with disregard to truth about them, especially in order to caricature them to win an argument.
I don’t think I did that. I didn’t mention anything personal. It’s fair to disagree with you isn’t it?
Worse, the wider context is that you are enabling a destructive radical secularist evolutionary materialist agenda that because it has no answer to the IS-OUGHT gap, has sought to smear ethical theism in our civilisation, the better to advance might and manipulation make “right,” “truth,” “justice,” etc.
Good heavens! I just felt that it was fair to mention some historical events which, in my opinion, provide a fuller picture of the effect the Christian faith has had. I’m not promoting anything especially not might and manipulation. I’m not going to take your interpretations of my actions personally because clearly you don’t know me at all.
In short, exactly the amorality- and nihilism- driven, domineering factions Plato warned against 2350+ years ago. Repeat: no, you have no right to put forth and double down on an “opinion” that is in disregard of truth and sets out to caricature and smear another
Well, how is anyone supposed to disagree with you without you perceiving it as a threat?
Maybe we should just leave it. The other readers can make up their own minds as to whether or not I did anything wrong.
KF – added later
And down that slippery slope of strawmannising, scapegoating, polarising and demonising lies incitement to the exact sort of violence that the OP warns against. Stop it, now. Apologise to the blog, then do better.
You want me to apologise for my opinion? You really don’t know me at all if you think I’m trying to incite violence. In fact I’m taking a stand against it.
Surely any reasonable person would be abhorred by some of the atrocities sanctioned by the Catholic Church during the Albigensian Crusade. I don’t understand what you are angry about. I just want the whole story to be told.
You can edit out that phrase I typed (‘I don’t think it’s fair . . . ‘) if if bothers you that much. I’m not really bothered.
JVL, I pointed to a very specific false and misleading claim you have made which you doubled down on. You have now proceeded to try to distract by appealing to a half-truth. Any responsible person would recognise from 66 above, much less what I have linked long since and excerpted last night, that this from you at 186 is utterly false: “The Christian ‘Church’ has clearly done some good things for humanity but it has also done/sponsored/supported some pretty hideous things. I don’t think it’s fair or honest or accurate to portray it as a purely positive influence on the history of mankind.” I have never made such a nonsensical portrayal, I have indicated its opposite, and to pretend that pointing out that which no one disputes — that there are sins of Christendom and the church (and before that sins that led to Israel’s judgement) — as though it corrects me is further deceit. In short, you are not acting as a participant in a serious discussion but are resorting to the techniques of agit-prop. I suggest you should seriously re-think, and ponder what you are enabling. KF
PS: When your opinion is in disregard to truth you know or should know (per duties of responsible discussion) and is used to mischaracterise others and circumstances — even in the teeth of correction, it is wrong; it is deceit by neglect at minimum. It is a wrong that caricatures, stereotypes, scapegoats and denigrates others. It should be retracted and apologied for. Then amends should be made.
PPS: The inconvenient alternative — from 66 above — that all this is working to sidetrack attention from:
Sadly, the above thread shows first steps of exactly the patterns and dynamics I warned against in 66.
J-Mac,
I agree; so presumably He did not know everything in advance. However, surely in that case He would have been aware of the possibility that things could go south, which is eventually what happened. Is it not reckless to create a population that could spiral out of control so spectacularly? We expect a shepherd to take care of his flock.
😮
Maybe in some circles that sort of theology flies, but not in the (Protestant) churches I’ve attended.
F/N: Ironically, as this exchange unfolds, headlines have been dominated by a case of exactly the sort of powerful man with a defective conscience in action that I spoke to in 66 above. This case directly shows the corruption of entertainment media elites, and by how they went along with suppression of exposure the news media elites also. The network then extends into the political class and gives pause to those who were so busily dismissing concerns on similar corruption across those classes. We are looking at the need for reformation, for critical mass to undergird such, and for a world roots level grounding for ethics, duties, rights, truthfulness when it is inconvenient and more. The distraction of trying to project strawman caricatures of those who point to the contributions to genuine reform by the Judaeo- Christian tradition and the pretence that listing out sins and atrocities of Christendom silences such contributions, is little more than enabling behaviour. KF
daveS @203
“I agree; so presumably He did not know everything in advance. However, surely in that case He would have been aware of the possibility that things could go south, which is eventually what happened. Is it not reckless to create a population that could spiral out of control so spectacularly? We expect a shepherd to take care of his flock.
This is the “risk” you take when you give your creatures free will…There is always a possibility things would go wrong…but not beyond repair with God… it seems 🙂
It doesn’t look reckless if one knows a bit about quantum mechanics and especially quantum information conservation…To repair “the damage”, all God has to is to bring the arrangement of subparticles to where they were before the damage; i.e. resurrect someone with the body and mind from before the damage…
Maybe in some circles that sort of theology flies, but not in the (Protestant) churches I’ve attended.
I’m not sure…
I was raised as Catholic and my whole family worshiped John Paul II. When he began to allude to the possibility that hell may not be literal, many in my family began to doubt his state of mind… Since we had a bunch of priests in the family, I challenge one of them on the issue… Surprisingly, he was very open to the idea of the non-literal hell, and even went further that God’s love wouldn’t allow human souls to be tormented for eternity… Many in my family were shocked, but as you can imagine, I was relieved… My whole view of God pretty much changed, when I realized the eternal place of torments didn’t exist…
I also asked the priest about Adam and Eve’s rebellion but particularly Satan’s. He knew a lot about that and we had a long, long conversations about many related subjects back then by mail, as there was no emails yet ;-).
However, we got stuck on one issue: Was Satan suicidal or naive when he rebelled against God? Satan must have known very well that there is penalty for the rebellion and yet, he decided to go ahead…Why? He knew the command given to Adam and Even that rebellion meant death. Was it different for angels? I doubt that very much…
So far, no one has been able to come up with the satisfactory explaination…
I have spoken to many, many knowledgeable people including many scholars, bible versed and the majority of christian evangelists… I recently even emailed a world-renowned geneticist who apparently is well acquainted with the bible, but no response either… 🙁
Any ideas? Anybody?
VJL @193
“Look, if God wants us to have free will then he just needs to leave us get on with things. If he’s likely to step in at some point and say: no, no, no this is not what I wanted then he’s not committed to free will. Then we’re just his experimental puppets.
And if God is ‘out-of-time’ then he knew what was going to happen before hand.
It just doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.
I agree. I think that was initially the idea that the universe, the earth and mankind would run its course…
Unfortunately, things went wrong with Adam and Eve’s rebellion…It needed to be fixed…
Regarding God’s knowing or not knowing, look at my conversation thread with daveS…I think we both explained it to some degree…
I’m sorry that you are disappointed…
@ 207 Dean_from_Ohio
Thanks for sharing your thoughts…
I agree, that some or many things will never be revealed to us…
However, I still believe there is a reasonable answer to this issue…I once thought I had a logical explanation to it, but I must have been dreaming about it… 🙂
Regarding Thess 2 : 1-15 you gave me another thing to think about…not that I have time for that now… lol
I’ve looked it up and that some translations refer to the wicked one or the man of lawlessness, which may very well refer to Satan…or his followers, or both…
Ideas?
Lest anyone think our secular society is better than paganism, here is a good comparison.
http://shoebat.com/2017/10/13/.....heir-blood
The acts we do are just as horrific, abortion in particular, but we hide them so we can avoid the unpleasant visuals.
Dean_from_Ohio @ 149
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mild parody or satirical comment on conventional religion, nothing more. Far worse has been said about Christianity, for example, by leading atheists. Yet the response from the university was more like that of North Korea reacting to a perceived insult to the Dear Leader. If it had occurred in the US there would have been immediate objections and even legal action on the grounds that it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Unfortunately, the US Constitution does not apply in the UK. The European Convention on Human Rights, however, does and Article 10 offers similar guarantees to the First Amendment. Unfortunately, Her Majesty’s subjects seem to be less aware of their statutory rights than they should be
Although there can be any number of atheist philosophies or ideologies, atheism itself is simply is simply the view that there is no reason to believe that gods exist. It does not derive from anything, it does not parasite on anything. All atheists have done is deny the core claim of Christianity, for example, that God exists. For that, they have been reviled, oppressed and even killed by believers who should know better throughout history.
Or maybe it makes believers uncomfortable because it draws attention to the lack of evidence, inconsistencies and contradictions in their faith which they would prefer to ignore. They would rather just recite “the pleasant poetry of Genesis” rather than confront the moral and logical problems the accounts actually present.
Atheism is the thorn in the side of unquestioning and uncritical belief.
Seversky:
No, atheism is the side of unquestioning and uncritical belief.
Seversky, just at random, the Flying Spaghetti Monster parody simply exposes how ignorant the objectors are concerning the nature of being. An entity made up from such components will be composite thus necessarily contingent. God is a necessary being, and so the FSM parody is a case of preening on ignorance. KF