Happy Thanksgiving! – Pat…
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The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.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 ...
I know. Hoyle posited 10^40000. I cut it down somewhat. Now, suppose it's only 10^1000? You still want to go with those odds?
Something about it not declaring any such thing makes me think that.
So your saying that science declares that cells can come from something other than cells and that the spontaneous generation of life is not impossible?
Perhaps it always has existed. Perhaps it's some kind of temporal loop.
OK. :-)
At present, science does not have sufficient information to answer the question "where did this all ultimately originate".
Which is about a big a statement of blind faith as the temporal loop. :-)
Really? Are you a Christian? Who is the child?
So, since amino acids naturally form proteins how come we see (not) all these naturally forming proteins from amino acids?
Happy Thanksgiving! – Pat…
No, it says cells can't come from non-cells; DNA can't come from non-DNA
Saying that science is currently unable to adequately address the ultimate origins of matter and energy is a statement of faith? I would think it a statement of fact.
Fair enough, but the implication that it one day will be able to is blind faith.
And the thing about the temporal loop is serious blind faith
How old do you believe the universe is?
Since the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) worldview says that "all that there is" is all that exists in nature - it logically is more narrow than any worldview which includes more than nature in its formulation of "all that there is."
Sounds like a set-up line to me, cornelis -- LOL! So pray tell, who that hail is Marvin K. Mooney?
Since the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) worldview says that "all that there is" is all that exists in nature - it logically is more narrow than any worldview which includes more than nature in its formulation of "all that there is."But then, how exactly do you define "nature"?
LOL, I don't doubt that! But myself, I don't understand why only the Material or the Ideal must be thought of as real & the other the shadow.
...I posted this to another thread, jennyp. Is this sort of thing what makes me a "supernaturalist?"
No, but I was assuming you were agreeing with Phaedrus & Alamo-Girl in their opposition to "atheist claim[s] to being rational".
When I see the word "atheist" I assume it's referring to someone who doesn't believe that the laws of nature and starting conditions we see in this universe were intentionally set up by a person of some kind in that other universe or set of dimensions or Platonic world.[Alamo-Girl] ...the metaphysical naturalist (atheist) claim to being rational rests on the worldview that: "all that there is" is all that exists in nature. ...
[Phaedrus] Well said. I would add that the Materialist cultural filter is strong enough that whatever glimpse of the immaterial appears in nature, and such glipses do occur, is mocked, discredited or ignored by the High Priests of Secular Humanism. But they have only words.
[betty boop] That cultural filter is so strong that, in most cases, you couldn't pry it off with a crow bar. :^)
Sometimes I think that Darwin was right -- and that the adherents of materialist opinion/ideology are a separate line of human development, a new species altogether! :^) Unfortunately, I'm not sure that willfully self-imposed narrow-mindedness will translate as an increase in survival fitness in the long run....
And isn't that the driving force behind this attitude that the atheist's worldview is a "willfully self-imposed narrow-mindedness", via our "Materialist cultural filter", which is so well defended by the "High Priests of Secular Humanism" that "you couldn't pry it off with a crow bar"? If our universe was simply a product of some mindless process which itself was perfectly natural in the context of its supernatural (or Ideal) realm, would y'all feel your critique of atheism's claim of rationality was even worth pursuing?
Look, I'd love to be convinced that there's another universe out there from which this universe sprang, even if its laws of nature look utterly magical to us at first. It would save me from having to wrap my mind around Physicist's Big-Bang-singularity-as-temporal-South-Pole model (which while helpful still makes me break out into a cold sweat when my mind's eye drifts from the balloon to "wherever" the balloon is floating). It's just that there's no evidence that there is (or even has to be) some person out there who had to fashion that balloon, etc. IMO the only thing that impels people to place a person out there is that impulse to anthropomorphism (or at least reification). After all these threads, I've still not found one good reason to suspect there's anything else going on.
I don't think you understand my motivation. I am not trying to "prove anything" or "win arguments"; frankly, that sort of thing matters to me less and less with the passage of time. What is important to me is to understand this amazing universe in which I live, on its own terms...
I'll try to keep that in mind. On one level that's my motivation as well. (The other level is defending myself against the charge that people like me can't be true conservatives, or even moral.)
Robots can't love.
This destroys everything you say afterwards. Plenty of people are suicidal; you have no reason that they shouldn't commit suicide if they want to. If all of society wants to commit suicide (or destroy itself), likewise. The problem is that you're reading a certain universal value into life that you've just admitted you can't justify - it might be of value to one beholder, but that of course doesn't make it objectively so. Just like you can't explain to a person that their life has an ultimate value (whatever relative value individuals place on a person's life is not 'guaranteed' - it could dry up at any time; also, a person doesn't have an objective reason to value anyone else's relative value of him or her), you have no justification for a law that's banning others from or punishing murder. After all, what justification would you have to make others recognize the value you have placed on a certain thing? It all really does become 'survival of the fittest' in this worldview, and the worst part, from my point of view, is that everything that happens would be justified by it's own lack of needing justification.
So my goal of a society that sustains the lives of humans as humans (as opposed to savages or slaves)
"Savage" and "slave" become purely relative terms from this worldview. As does "human," actually (which is why a fetus is considered less human to some these days). Your worldview does not provide you a justification for seeing to it that anyone else holds your values and/or visions of those ideas. Your goal, then, falls flat.
Besides, it isn't said that the respect and love are in addition to obedience; they're one in the same.
Additionally, on what grounds do you, the admitted relativist, have to place an objective negative value on egotism anyway?
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.