Posted on 10/25/2002 12:14:19 AM PDT by jennyp
Alas, all that complicated writing, and it finally dribbles down to this -- a statement for which his dreary Seattle-style writing offers no basis -- not at all surprising, given that his conclusion is baseless anyway.
Sigh. Why didn't he just limit it to this, and save us the trouble of trying to wade through all of the turgid pap that preceded it?
Not I. I first learned how to say five "Hail Mary's", Glory Be's, Confiteor's, Acts of Contrition and Our Father's. I was then told that the Earth was created in 6 days. I was told that I was born with the "stain" of original sin and had to be baptized or I would go to hell if I died. When I began to ask questions about the age of fossils and how they contradicted Biblical teaching, I was told that only the faithful go to heaven.
What is wrong with this picture? I was not born believing that evolution was a "fact." I discovered that natural selection made abundant sense by explaining why some species exist and why some go extinct. It it a marvelous interplay of genetics, the environment and selective pressures exerted on organisms which influence how they either adapt or do not over time. What evolution really speaks to is time. It does not alienate those who wish to still give God the credit although I do not. It is simply a science which is empirically based and seeks to answer questions. Some questions are answered, some are not. But, none are turned away- - -even those dealing with how the ball got rolling.
To prove it you have to provide a definition first. What axioms are you positing as prerequisite for God? It is hard to be consistent without that context.
And it should be bloody obvious that the requirement for proof is to establish a non-null prior for God. Without that prior the belief is, by definition, irrational. I, for one, am very careful about not making irrational assertions, though most of the population doesn't seem to have this impediment.
Apparently the point is missing you. It is trivial to prove that it COULD have happened, regardless of whether it DID happen. By establishing a non-null prior, it becomes rational to believe your assertion that you fell down the steps as a child taken by itself.
And as is in rampant evidence, people make up bullshit stories about things all the time, either through stupidity, malice, or simple ignorance. In the absence of a non-null prior, we have NO reason to believe a word of it.
is fantasy---
micro evolution...
is manipulating---
fabricating(re-wording/working)---reality/science(creation)!
Evolution is the taproot...holy grail of liberalism/atheism/utopia...delusians!
To put it another way: I try to hang out with animals to the fullest extent possible. Mostly I just enjoy their company -- however brief, as usually seems the case when it comes to wildlife.
In dealing with domestic animals however -- dogs, cats, and horses form my experiential base -- it has been my experience that they react/respond, not to language, but to signals. Some of these signals may be verbal. Some may be physical cues.
The point is: Reaction to a signal does not necessarily prima facie demonstrate advanced cognitive abilities, let alone language interpretation skills.
Thus it seems to me that "reason," as you appear to describe it, cannot be a "body of knowledge." Rather, I'd say it's the preeminent tool for the qualification of what can pass for knowledge, as mediated by logic and experience.
Based on my experience, in general, animals do not exactly excel in the kind of intellectual operation that depends on language for its intelligible communication.
So if you were to tell me that there really isn't any real distinction of consequence as between humans and other animals (which is the "reasonable" conclusion to draw from Darwinist theory), then I'd have to say:
Show me: I'm just dying to see your evidence. Hopefully, what passes for evidence with you will not be wholly speculative, but would take actual life observation and experience into account....
You say that God is an imaginary idea.
I aver that you could not say this if you knew Him as many of us here do. If you knew Him, you would understand that He is and that fact in its perfection answers the questions: What is the meaning of life and Why am I here and Why bother.
If you knew Him, you would understand that there is no courage without fear, no love without hate, no joy without sorrow, no goodness without evil. Our opportunity to be born anew is in contrast to what we once were and is manifest in us not by power, not by might, not by reason - but by the Spirit.
We become proof that He is.
If you want to know if He exists, then I strongly suggest you ask Him. If you are one of His, you'll hear His reply - and if not, then you never were. Not everyone has “ears to hear.”
Same one as always...
As he watched, the moon rose, there was a meteor shower and a display of the aurora borealis, a cock crowed thrice, it thundered, a flock of geese flew by in the shape of a swastika, and a giant hand wrote Mene, mene, what's it you? across the sky in giant silver letters. Suddenly Frito had the overpowering feeling that he had come to a turning point, that an old chapter in his life was ending and a new one beginning. "Mush, you brute," he said, kicking the pack animal in the kidneys, and as the great quadruped staggered forward, tailfirst into the black East, there came from deep in the surrounding forest the sound of some great bird being briefly, but noisily, ill.
:^)
Yes, but you'll have missed your deadline ;)
The opposite of Reason is "I believe in God because my parents did". That's not reasonable.
For whatever reason, I have a sneaky suspicion that this is exactly why many, if not most, people believe. Church is just sort of what you do on Sunday morning, a kind of reflex action. A critical, introspective examination of the basis for one's faith is never really undertaken - people believe what they believe because that's what they were brought up to believe. The person who does come to a particular faith by introspection and reflection is a rare bird indeed.
Well, it really depends a great deal on how you define "God". That being said, no, one probably cannot disprove the existence of God, so long as the definition of "God" is even slightly clever.
Of course, that's a bit of a slender reed upon which to hang one's faith. Not being able to disprove something isn't much of a reason, in and of itself, to believe it's true - the believer will probably wish to seek something a bit more substantial than just that. After all, I can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus either, but that's probably not quite enough to persuade you to believe in him ;)
Where a thing can neither be proved nor disproved, it has been proven to be a matter of faith.
I don't know if you really need to prove such a thing - it's pretty much true by definition...
While the author does not clearly state his atheist perspective, it is pretty clear that he considers religion, per se to be the problem, not merely certain fanatical adherents of one particular religion known as Islam:
Not a war of one religion against another, but of reason against religion--against any belief system that takes its mandate from an invisible spiritual entity and endows its followers with the right to murder or subjugate anyone who fails to come to the same conclusion.
Thus, he makes a false distinction between reason and religion, and he further characterizes religion (again, per se) to mean murdering and subjugating in the name of some 'invisible spiritual entity'. Excuse me if I draw the obvious conclusion that the writer is hostile to ALL religion, not just Islamic terrorists.
As for the 'cult of rationalism', this simply describes the mentality of Randians, followers of Md. Murray O'Hare, the publishers of Skeptic magazine and many outspoken atheistic scientists who tout human reason as the highest standard in all things and often like to spell it with a capital 'R'. I do not mean that there is an organized cult or official religion, nor was it meant to be derogatory. The simple fact is that there are many people who, lacking a belief in God, substitute Reason as their god and habitually castigate all religions and all religious persons for the atrocious acts of a few extremists. However, they would be loathe to take the blame, as atheists, for all the atrocities committed by atheists throughout history (French Revolution, Marxism, Marque de Sade, etc.) Gee, THAT would be unfair, wouldn't it?
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.