Posted on 12/29/2011 1:01:09 PM PST by daletoons
Atheist militant Richard Dawkins has produced a children's book entitled "The Magic of Reality" and in doing so has joined the Millstone Swim and Dive Club. Spreading his venom for God to kids under the guise of Scientism is about as putrid as it gets. Children using simple God-given logic conclude the existence of a creator. It requires an abandonment of logic to attain self omniscience and declare there is no God. The materialist's faith in the escape hatch of "there just wasn't enough evidence for me" won't wash on judgement day. Here's a book idea: The ghost of Christopher Hitchens, Jacob Marley style, appears to Richard Dawkins and sets him straight. Dickey would probably make a hash of it, too bad Hitchens isn't still around to write it.
That, by definition, is belief.
The determination of the validity of evidence is subjective on your part as your criteria is whether or not YOU think it's valid, not whether or not it really, truly IS objectively valid.
If you could understand it, you wouldn't be religious. These debates usually end up here: with the theist trying very, very hard to recast the atheist as just another kind of theist.
I can understand it because I was once where you are. I was essentially an atheist at one time until Reality Himself smacked me upside the head.
Usually you're trying to recast us as some level of satanist who is trying to deny God for dark reasons, or someone who is angry with God. If you can do this to your own satisfaction, you have kept your world God-centered by assigning the atheist a role in it that you can recognize and understand.
Nope. I don't try to recast any atheists as *satanists*. Yes, I believe that he exists, too, but that does not by default mean that everyone who rejects the concept of God embraces the concept of satan. If someone doesn't believe enough in the supernatural to believe in God, there's no reason to expect them to believe enough in the supernatural to believe in demons or angels.
Besides, most satanists are more likely anti-theists as opposed to a-theists.
Have a Happy New year.
To be added or removed from the Viking Kitty/ZOT Ping List, FReepmail Darkwing104 or 50mm.
Where did you find that definition of "belief," A_perfect_lady? Might you possibly have made it up yourself?
Merriam-Webster defines "belief" thusly:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thingDear A_perfect_lady, you seem to be laboring under an unshakeable presupposition: that faith ("belief") and reason are mutually-exclusive. Yet to me, they are necessarily interdependent, existing as complementarities in dynamic relation.2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group [e.g., Darwinists :^)]
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
It turns out all of science itself is premised on the "belief" that the world is so intelligibly ordered that the human mind can understand it. Absent this "belief," science couldn't even get started.
Of course, "science" these days doesn't ask, "Why is the world intelligibly ordered in the first place?" It doesn't ask that question, because to answer it, it would be necessary to step entirely "outside" of the "scientific method" — there are no "direct observables" here. But that does not mean there is no evidence here; it only means that the type of evidence available is not suitably "computable" or "metric" for science to "process" according to its method.
That is to say, not everything that exists "reduces" to scientific measurement!!!
A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle — which is to say, the Principle — or it is just a diversion. Nevertheless, Stupidity appropriates what science invents with diabolical facility....You strenuously maintain (against all reason, it seems) that atheism is ***NOT*** a belief system! Okay. So let's call it a "non-belief" system: YOU STILL BELIEVE IN IT!!! In "the name of reason," you are nonetheless forced into "the position of faith"....
In our effort to demonstrate the essential unity of religion and science, we specifically want to avoid the superficial and metaphysically incoherent approach of the materialists, which essentially reduces to magic — no different than the young earth creationist who sees God as a kind of magician. But creation is not magic; rather, it is thoroughly rooted in, and infused with, order and Reason. Yes, there are myths that describe creation as if it were a giant magic act, but the purpose of myth is to awaken Truth within, not to force consent from without. [Robert Godwin]
Well, just some thoughts FWTW.
That’s a keeper of a post. Thank you.
Ping to post 339 for those interested.
Happy New Year.
There is also a ton of research and evidence that contradicts the evolutionary model.
And [macro]evolution is based on fallacious reasoning and is not supported experimentally.
Far from it. We have yet to see any beneficial mutations. All seen so far have been either neutral or detrimental. Also, the type of mutations necessary for evolution would have to add new pieces to the DNA to create new traits (All known mutations are just corruptions of the DNA an organism already has and not additions to the DNA). I would love to see an explanation for how this is supposed to happen.
Great zot
Very nice post, covering lots of ground in an orderly manner.
Nice GIF! Is it new?
Pardon my asking, but is that by any chance *the* Godwin? (ironic name, given the thread, eh?)
Cheers!
Pardon my asking, but is that by any chance *the* Godwin of "Godwin's Law" fame? (ironic name, given the thread, eh?)
Cheers!
>> what I would like to ask is this:
“Show me that u MUST be 0”. I.e., in our particular case, show me why P and Q NEED to coexist without a transition between the two. <<
.
Since no case has ever been found where ‘P’ became ‘Q’ (or anything other than P) We can rest in the fact that ‘P’ is P and ‘Q’ is Q and not waste our short and precious time here searching for improbable ‘gradients.’ Leave the Sci-Fi for amusement only, and retain your remaining shred of credibility by not asserting that it is science.
.
Sweet!
It’s old. I’m still recycling.
Placemark to read.
Nope. This is not Mike Godwin, but one Robert Godwin, a clinical psychologist (and philosopher).
Nobody on this thread seems to have invoked Hitler or the Nazis yet. Do you suppose that some of our correspondents may think that Godwin's Law can work perfectly well when one substitutes "Christ" and "Christians" for "Hitler" and "Nazis?"
Arguably, Hitler perpetrated a "magical act" on the people of Germany: He was a "sorcerer," a "'black magician." His operation was "magical" precisely because it was a successful deception of his target audience.
"Magic" purports to "transform" Reality; but in Reality, whatever transformation occurs is in the mind of the target audience, not in the world per se. Hitler's acts were premised in the idea that "magic" can effect an eclipse of Reality, so as to build a "new and better" one. But this is to lie about the Truth of Reality. And when one does that, inevitably people suffer.
Or so it seems to me. JMHO FWIW.
Thank you oh so very much, dear grey_whiskers, for your outstanding contributions to this thread! And HAPPY NEW YEAR!
p.s.: I very much admire Eric Voegelin's observation that "myth remains the legitimate language of the soul." But people who equate "myth" with "false" could never appreciate this outstanding insight....
“But as for keeping quiet completely (like liberals want conservatives to do), no, I won’t. Silence implies consent, and I do not consent.”
Lady(?), you flatter yourself. I’m not aware that anyone here has asked for your consent, and in light of your prior posts, it would be worthless anyway!
JC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.