Posted on 11/17/2003 6:02:20 AM PST by Tribune7
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist. This heady notion was first made popular by French intellectuals such as Voltaire and Diderot, who ushered in the so-called Age of Enlightenment.
That they also paved the way for the murderous excesses of the French Revolution and many other massacres in the name of human progress is usually considered an unfortunate coincidence by their philosophical descendants.
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not. Since there are very few minds capable of grasping higher-level physics, let alone following their implications, and since specialization means that it is nearly impossible to keep up with the latest developments in the more esoteric fields, the atheist stands with utter confidence on an intellectual foundation comprised of things of which he knows nothing.
In fairness, he cannot be faulted for this, except when he fails to admit that he is not actually operating on reason in this regard, but is instead exercising a faith that is every bit as blind and childlike as that of the most unthinking Bible-thumping fundamentalist. Still, this is not irrational, it is only ignorance and a failure of perception.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions – and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule – they are commanded to do so – the atheist does not.
In fact, such ethics, as well as the morality that underlies them, are nothing more than man-made myth to the atheist. Nevertheless, he usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them.
Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on that thought? AntiChrist sits enthroned? In the temple? 42 months? I'm curious as to what you are thinking and why you are thinking it.
Then please, please, be the first to show me how she can post a few sentences that supposedly refute abiogenesis, I post a few that prove that her rebuttal isn’t even speaking to the modern theory, and she doesn’t have to defend it. She just changes the subject and directs me to a very long and involved analysis of very different issues.
Please, if you truly respect her, be the first to succinctly explain this apparently dishonest behavior that she refuses to abandon.
If you will look at her discussion with me in this thread about work on the creation of life in the lab, numbers 11 through 15, you will see that she is far more open-minded on the topic than you give her credit for.
Huh? Something can't be objectively true if it's not immortal?
Oh wait, I see. It's a variation on the argument: "What if everybody on Earth decided to commit suicide? That would disprove your claim that life is an objective good!"
Well... uh... OK. If everyone on Earth decides to take some self-destructive action - and it's because they want to destroy themselves by doing it - then we'll revisit this objection. Until then it's merely a strawman, sez I. People make foolish or ignorant decisions all the time, but the vast majority have some combination of a longer or better life for themselves & those they value as their goal.
If you really think that a longer/better life is not an objective good, then please give me the argument for why you yourself should seek out misery & death for yourself and those people you love.
If I truly respect her? Do you doubt it? The charge of dishonesty is to me a serious one because it assumes knowing deception. I followed your links. You have not made that case and are therefore guilty of ad hominem attack, which is not permitted here.
For decades, the Darwinists have made overarching claims to life having arisen via abiogenesis. Those claims have in recent years been shown to be empty and the Darwinists have only relatively recently backed away from them. Abiogenesis nonetheless continues to be implied as true if not taught in many of our public schools, which is wrong if not deceitful.
Your charge against A-G is, in a word, unfounded. Kindly therefore, in 3 words, knock it off.
Actually, I had zero accusatory thoughts regarding your deception, just your resolve. (Why make that assumption?) You and 4-5 others seem to share enough affection for her to stand up to her accuser but don’t seem to have the ability to compose a logical rebuttal after following those links, not even a possible alternative explanation.
I posted my accusation in such a way that anyone could follow the links and see the progression of her deception. The evidence seems to be there. If no one who cares for her can compose a reasonable and succinct defense, that’s just more evidence that she’s perpetrating a fraud.
I’m almost as reluctant to make the accusation as you are to accept it. I’ve seen her work for 6 years and appreciated it. And I’m still giving her the benefit of the doubt to some degree. Rather than assassinating her character on a wider scale, I suggested that her work documenting Clinton atrocities brought her to this. Perhaps after the 1000th piece of evidence on the 50th body with Bill at 70% in the polls, A-g snapped, and decided her principles were in error for what was most important to her.
The evidence of her fraud is in the links in my previous post. I took the time to present it in a way that could be easily followed, allowing people to make up their own minds. I’m confident that it shows that she’s evading addressing the rebuttal to her mischaracterization of abiogenesis.
I see no other conclusion than that she’s acting fraudulently. You can say she’s not (and say I’m a bad guy for saying so), but you can’t rebut the evidence against her (succinctly). No one has even attempted it.
That’s a nice conversation you two had, but not very relevant to the specific deception that I’ve documented, and no alternative explanation has been presented for that other than the one that I've accused her of.
Good question, jennyp. On the other hand, if truth does not persist, or last, then how can we say that it is objective -- meaning, objective relative to us, the "creatures of a day"...?
I am reminded of a dialog of Plato, the Gorgias. The dialog explores the nature of Justice. Callicles says that Justice is the interest of the strong man. Socrates says that Justice is an eternal, divine principle that transcends the Cosmos, that universally applies to all men alike, regardless of station or circumstance. Be they strong or weak, rich or poor, young or old, virtuous or not, etc., etc., all men alike stand in judgment according to a Judgment that is not of this world -- that is, a judgment that is not devised by man.
The best way we can tell whether Socrates' case holds water on objective merits is to look at the sheer universal persistence of the idea of Justice in human history. If we do that, then we might find ourselves fairly readily persuaded that Callicles was wrong, and Socrates was right.
Analogously, scientific truth cannot be a "creature of the Age," with its transitory, contingent, fleeting opinions.
A moral principle that is universal is 'objective' - true for everyone, in all times, etc. and not a product of the individual but a thing that preceeds and proceeds him and is part of his very purpose; if the individual (or even everyone) regards a certain moral principle as not being true, it still makes that principle no less real. This is the theistic view of the nature of morality as I understand it, and the only explanation for universality of morals. Atheism, on the other hand, cannot have a set of morals that is outside of the individual; any 'morality' in this world is simply and solely a personal conviction and thus, in the atheistic world, a person's morals die with him or her. In that world, if everyone were to disregard the specific brand of morals that you have here promoted, then it would necessarilly not be true for anyone.
So when you say...
If everyone on Earth decides to take some self-destructive action - and it's because they want to destroy themselves by doing it - then we'll revisit this objection.
...you are admitting to the purely subjective nature of this brand of morality you are espousing - because one day it may cease to exist as humankind's morality simply because humankind has changed. It is therefore not universal, as again would always be the case in an atheistic world.
Your entire line of thought seems to be:
1.) By and large (people/living things/whatever) don't seek the destruction of their own lives,
2.) Therefore, the (continuation/improvement) of (life/existence/whatever) is objectively good.
In other words, 'it is the regular occurence, thus we can infer that it is the good.' Is that really what you're saying?
Yes, except it goes deeper than that. The continuation & improvement of our lives is the very reason we worry about the best way to live in the first place. It's axiomatic. (If you think it's not, then tell me how you'd go about convincing yourself to follow a moral code that you know will kill, impoverish, and/or generally destroy the lives of yourself and those you love. I don't think you can do it. What's more, I doubt you'd even want to try.)
Thus, the sustaining & enhancement of one's life and of those whom they value is as much an objective good as you could ever hope to find, IMO.
I also repeated the challenge to MitchellC in 746:
If you really think that a longer/better life is not an objective good, then please give me the argument for why you yourself should seek out misery & death for yourself and those people you love.
I'd appreciate it if you two could try to answer my challenge, since you both think that self-interest cannot be an objective, in any meaningful sense, basis for "the good".
Well said, bb, and this conflict (Truth vs. There Is No Truth) is embodied in the Culture War. Just knowing truth is exceedingly difficult if words are the measure. Living it, aligning oneself with it, is equally difficult.
America was founded on the ideals of truth, justice and equality under the law for the individual. That we have not only "survived" as a nation but prospered beyond the wildest imaginations of the ancients is testimony to the power of this ideal. We ignore it and do not teach it to our children to our peril and, if this continues, if the obersve of the American Ideal is given equal weight in our national debate, we will be torn asunder. It's been happening for 30-40 years. Another 10 or 20 and America will be no more ... IMHO.
In support of this contention, a homely little tale. Let me state up front that this is not intended as a "promo". I was recently invited to join Rotary International, and did so. Rotary is the world's first service club, founded in the early 1900's in Chicago, now with some 1.2 million members worldwide. Members are expected to give their money and time to worthy service projects. Prominent among the club's rituals is "THE FOUR-WAY TEST of the things we think, say or do" and it is "first Is it the TRUTH?, second Is it FAIR to all concerned?, third Will it build GOOD WILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?, fourth Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?" We also salute the Flag and pray at meetings.
Note well, please, that it is the individual member that is charged to know truth. The Four Way Test brooks no debate as to whether it can be done. It is expected. This, bb, is America, this is at the heart of why we have prospered and this is why legions of the downtrodden move heaven and earth to reach our shores with nothing but the clothes on their backs. We deny this and lose this at our peril.
Ancillary debates of Shannon entropy, Kolmorov complexity, aperiodic complexity, autonomous, Negentropy, Scaffolding, and "Design" anthropomorphisms is not a journey I can afford to travel now, but if you can summarize why it’s fundamental to a defense from the refutation in my last, I’ll try to find the time to investigate.
In post 693 you link to Musgrave's Talk Origin article that I noted was rebutted here
A-G responds to you in in great detail in Post 707 in which she notes that the Talk Origin rebuttal is based on a 24-year-old work while ignoring the reasoning in his 1992 book. Question: wouldn't that raise a red flag in a rational person concerning Talk Origin's bias?
A-G linked to a 1996 discussion involving Yockey himself on probability and origin of life in Post 685
Now where is there dishonesty? More importantly, why would you make the charge of dishonesty when you admit an unwillingness to study the topic being dicussed, that it is "not a journey I can afford to travel now."
Before calling someone a liar I'd make it appoint to understand what the person is saying.
There seems to be some crucial information missing here, jennyp -- that is, what is the criterion of the "best way?" What is the standard that allows us to say that something is "an improvement?"
...[Why can't] self-interest ... be an objective, in any meaningful sense, basis for "the good"[?]
Probably because most people would define self-interest in terms of personal goals, needs, and wants. That is, every man would define his own good, just as every man must define his own "happiness." Sooner or later, since each man must define the good differently, if its basis is personal preference, differences of opinion would arise, and we would expect conflict to ensue.
Under these circumstances, if we make any attempt to mediate the conflict, we would quickly discover that we have no ultimate, authoritative, universal standard of the good that we can appeal to. It could only be one man's opinion of the good versus every other man's, and no objective basis by which to say otherwise; and successful competition (or even crass "getting away with it") -- not the Good, in and for itself -- would become the de facto "ultimate good" for man.
This is little short of "the law of the jungle," as it turns out. Just try to imagine what a human society would look like, that espoused such a relativistic understanding of what the Good is. For one thing, it seems to me such things as cooperation, mutual respect, basic civility, etc., can find no basis of support in an idea of the Good that is subjectively defined. Yet it is precisely these things that make families, communities, societies and nations "work."
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.