Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Dawkins and The Atheist Straw God part 2

PhotobucketGod and adam


This part 2 of the previous post. I was considering an argument that Dawkins makes to the effect that evolution doesn't leave God anything to do. The idea that evolution is a counter to God belief is so sophomoric it's hardly worth arguing against, but the fact that Dawkins is willing to argue it seroiusly is very telling. The "new atheists" or "Dawkies" as I call them (Dawkamentalits) take the same tact mocking and ridiculing real, serious, advanced and sophisticated liberal theology. But he augments the simplistic contradiction between God and evolution by trying to turn it into a basis for probabilistic analysis ruling out the probability of God.

Wouldn't we be tempted to fall on our knees and worship them, as a medieval peasant might if suddenly confronted with such miracles as a Boeing 747, a mobile telephone or Google Earth? But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us. Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable —and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.
So he uses this notion to create an opposition then leverages out the God concept on the basis that it's primitive and superstitious. The lever is the probability analysis. Evolution is the competing er zots creator. He then asserts the astounding concept that a mind can't create evolution. This is supposedly the case because as  a statistically complex thing a mind would be improbable since it has to be the product of evolution and develop. That would god is the product of evolution. That would make evolution and the who understands it best (Dawkins?) would be God's "Keeper." Aside from that aspect, Dawkins thinking here is extremely silly. But let's take it in stages.  First I'll deal with the original allegation that God has nothing to do in an evolving universe, secondly I'll deal with the inane probability argument.

The basic assumption he makes is that God is a big man in the sky. The reason I think he assumes this is because he treats God as though God were a big man; men need "tings to do." Of cousre if God created evolution one would have to think that he understood this would leave him with time on his hands. Rather than postulate the existence of a huge heavenly golf course with angelic caddies, perhaps we might just suspect that God doesn't need to "do things" in the same way that we do. Tilehard de Chardin theorized that God is the strong force. The strong force holds together atomic structures. In that case God would have a lot to do, assuming he "needed something to do." But not being a big man beyond our understanding we might just assert that God doesn't get board, doesn't have to challenge himself with meaningless activities and if he is trying to draw people to Christ he has his hands full anyway trying to convict people like Dawkins of their arrogance, and also teaching logic to atheists. That ought to keep him busy for an eternity or two.

Notice that Dawkin's arguments don't stem from the idea that God would not be capable of making a universe, but that he needs an activity, what he really mean is that in our understanding of argument for the existence of god there's nothing for him to do (that assumes the best implication because he does not say this). He may really mean there's nothing we can see that would give us an idea of the difference between God and no God. Stephan Hawking's argument is not based upon the probability scam but upon a question prompted by his own theory which removes the singularity in favor of a no boundary condition of the universe; in other words the universe did not begin in time.
So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose that it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? (quoted byCTNS)
This is different from Dawkin's argument, but the answers overlapp. Keith Ward Takes issue in God, Chance and Necessity (quoted on CTNS site, Ibid.)

"On the quantum fluctuation hypothesis, the universe will only come into being if there exists an exactly balanced array of fundamental forces, an exactly specified probability of particular fluctuations occurring in this array, and existent space-time in which fluctuations can occur. This is a very complex and finely tuned ‘nothing’... So this universe looks highly contingent after all, and a creator God might well choose to create a partly probabilistic universe by choosing just such an origin for it."

Drees points out that in fact the Hawking-Hartle proposal accords well with a theology which emphasises that every space is equally created by God, ‘“sustaining” the world in all its “times.”’ R.J.Russell has shown, moreover, that at the core of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is the principle of ontological dependence - that all matter, all energy, and the laws that govern the universe all depend for their existence on a God whose existence is not dependent on anything. The discovery of an actual temporal beginning to this material universe would not prove this doctrine (since the doctrine rests on metaphysical convictions about God and existence) but only provide an additional gloss to it

Russell, Ph.D. Physics Santa Cruz,
prof Theology and Scinece
Founder and director CTNS
This means there are still things for God to do, just in case he needs them. Form the standpoint of apologetic there are still "earmarks" of God's work. But with Dawkins argument the rationale is quite different. His probability mess does not lend itself well to the God argument proof issue. He's not just looking for a hint of God's handiwork to compare to regular nature, but is actually trying to subject God to the needs and habits of a big man. He's creating his own Staw God concept and trying to wedge that in to the Christian argument. Dawkn's strwa God is a big biological organism subject to the same needs for challenge and stimulation that humans possess. He has a human mind that can be compared to our own reasoning processes so that a probability can be fixed to it's existence. Of course it would have to be the product of evolution because in Dawkin's world straw God is the product of higher forces, not the ground of being or the primordial aspect of reality upon which all other things depend, but the Dawkamentalist er zots God of science, evolution, has to create the straw God. In so doing Dawkins has tipped his hand, it is apparent he doesn't understand the Christian concept of God nor is he working within it's philosophical boundaries. He's not only created a straw God but he's placed it under jurisdiction of his own er zots god.

Of course weather one is a Tillichian, a Lutheran or a Thomism, even a protestant evangelical God is not a product of anything. No Christian group anywhere would accept this. That aspect alone marks Dawkin's straw God as a straw man argument. Of course as the last post parted out (part 1) it makes so much more sense to understand God as the progenitor of physical law, and perhaps directing to toward evolution, rather than the product of it, because otherwise you have these disembodied laws that most modern scientists don't even see as perspective anymore, no way to explain what they do or where they are located prior to the universe. That also means that the universe itself lacks explanation. Thanks to this maneuver Dawkin's idea actually highlights the real need to understand God as the basis of reality rather than to posit a big man with nothing to do. For this reason his argument is circular as the premise (God is a big man with nothing to do) rests upon the conclusion (viewing  God in which way disproves the existence of God).

That God is subject to evolution Dawkins predicates upon the human understanding of the universe about the nature of complexity. Complexity serves a key function in the argument because with it probability might favor God. But in using it he opens the door to another means of destroying his argument. He wants to say that God would have to be complex because as far as we know only complexity can produce more complexity. Thus a complex universe would have to be the process of a more complex God:

To midwife such emergence is the singular achievement of Darwinian evolution. It starts with primeval simplicity and fosters, by slow, explicable degrees, the emergence of complexity: seemingly limitless complexity—certainly up to our human level of complexity and very probably way beyond. There may be worlds on which superhuman life thrives, superhuman to a level that our imaginations cannot grasp. But superhuman does not mean supernatural. Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences. Once it has done so, of course, those intelligences can create other complex things: works of art and music, advanced technology, computers, the Internet and who knows what in the future? Darwinian evolution may not be the only such generative process in the universe. There may be other "cranes" (Daniel Dennett's term, which he opposes to "skyhooks") that we have not yet discovered or imagined. But, however wonderful and however different from Darwinian evolution those putative cranes may be, they cannot be magic. They will share with Darwinian evolution the facility to raise up complexity, as an emergent property, out of simplicity, while never violating natural law.
He just asserts that natural law is all there is and thus God must be a product of natural law. This astounding conclusion is arrived at how? By using human understanding based upon, his own words, "Darwinian evolution is the only process we know that is ultimately capable of generating anything as complicated as creative intelligences." And how much of the universe have seen? Up close we know some stuff form one planet, how much? We don't know, we are still amazed by our own planet. Off planet we've made remarkable progress through telescopes and other long range means, but what do we really know?

John Polikinghorne Q and A (question about cosmological argument)
John Polikinghorne's Websiet
the answer of his assistant
However since it is known that only 4% of the matter and energy in the Universe is made of what we understand as matter, and most of the universe seems, on current understandings, to be “dark matter” and “dark energy” about which we know nearly nothing, and no-one knows how to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity (the much-hyped String Theory looks increasingly like a dead-end) it is unwise to assume that current understandings of cosmology represent the last word.
  I’ll see what John has to add. John said he had nothing to add to this reply

We can take this to mean we know only about 4% of the universe. Actually it might be a lot less but this s a good illustration of one aspect of which we know almost nothing, and that aspect is major. So Dawkins standard for fixing human knowledge is pretty feeble. But the fact he's willing to do it is interesting because when we use the same kind of standard in God arguemnts, it means nothing to an atheist. We say "not one single example anywhere in all of reality shows a non contingent aspect of the natural world" but they dont' care. As far as they are concerned that tells us nothing about the universe being contingent. they are willy to shout "fallacy of composition" on that one but totally ignore what the limited data base does to their assumption about complexity and human knowledge.

(1) tries to force God under the jurisdiction of the physical by just asserting the universal necessity of physical law, he abhorrence of Magic, of course making out that supernatural is "only magic" which can't exist because it's opposed to the ideology of physcialism and lack of a God forbid that anything should contradict that! We know that's the only real truth how do we know it? by the same circular reasoning that allows us to hide proof of miracles under the same dictum and to assume through circular reasoning that there is no God.

(2) Of course attaching a probability to something like God woud be totally impossible since there's nothing to compare to. the very concept of the probability of the foundation of reality is impossible understand.

In addition to this there are also a couple of problems with the "complexity" and applying it to God.

(1) No basis for comparison.

How could one say if the basis of reality is complex or simple? This would especially be perplexing if creation has a moment in time. If God existed "before" creation (if creation is done in time then there can be a "before") as opposed to placing it in a spacial coordinate such as "beyond event horizon." In either case to what do we compare God? Let's say we have car in an eternal void of nothing. This is true absolute nothing, no vacuum flux, no germs no nothing. Just pure darkness and this care. Now how fast is it moving? Is it moving at all? Say it's 0 mph. But wait, no landmarks to measure miles, no time to measure hours, hwo can we even say it's moving at all, must less how fast? This is the same problem we have in consider God's complexity. What is complex compared to God? Does the term have a meaning. What is simple compared to the only thing that is? On the other hand suppose there's nothing but a singularity, a mathematical dot. The dot would be complex compered to nothing, but compared to us it would be simple.

(2) God is simple

Thomas Aquinas  believed that God was simple, the "primary act of existence," extremely simple.

(3) Their premise contradicts evolution which has complexity coming from simplicity

Dawkins says as quoted above that evolution would mean God has to be complex and to have developed by physical laws. On the other hand evolute posits origin from extreme simplicity and the simplicity evolves into complexity. We begin the universe with a singularity and life with a single cell organism. It looks like the principle of complex from the simple is not a contradiction to evolution. Since God is not a biological organism and can't the product of a process that would suggest that God is simple and the complexity of the universe evolved. Moreover, God does not have a physical brain and thus what is it exactly that would need to be complex?

Come to that Dawkins is willing to use human data base, limited though it is, to argue absolute analogy for things beyond our observation, so why isn't he wiling to accept the notion of a contingent universe?

(4) If God was complex it would have no consequances because God is not vulnerable to the probelms of complexity

a. wont wear out no entropy

b. doesn't have to be the result of a process

Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.
Of course I've already demonstrated quotations above that show God would still have a lot to do as the strong force, setting target levels for fine tuning. But of course there's no reason to believe God needs to do anything. This requires the notion  of a God of liberal theology. When confronted with this reality Dawkins shows his true dishonestly. Dawkins seeks to head off a liberal God concept but he just can't quite bring himself to face a real one:

Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: "Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn't matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism."
That's a straw theologian argument because no one says that. There are some who hinted at it in the 60s God is dead movement, but there are plenty of modern theologians still working and none of them really say this. Tillich certainly didn't say it. Tillich says God is a concrete reality not just a wishful thought in our minds. No theologian I know of says that. But plenty of them say that is not a big man in the sky. But Dawkins is not brave enough to take on those guys.

Well, if that's what floats your canoe, you'll be paddling it up a very lonely creek. The mainstream belief of the world's peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. 
 Yea but that does not mean that it's subject to the laws of physics, which He created, nor does it mean he's a big man in the sky either.

If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again. Tell the congregation of a church or mosque that existence is too vulgar an attribute to fasten onto their God, and they will brand you an atheist. They'll be right.

 Most of those churches don't believe God is subject physical law or the product of evolution either. Dawkin's arguemnts are convoluted, circular and dishonest he really should be selling securities and making loans for mortgage company.

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Dawkins and the Atheist Straw God argument: part 1


Richard Dawkins.net posts an article:saturday setp 12, 2009

article entitled:

"Richard Dawkins argues that evolution leaves God with nothing to do"

Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in "Natural Theology," that the creation of life was God's greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we'd amend the statement: Evolution is the universe's greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.
Here we see the atheist willing to take the prescriptive side of physical law, whereas most of them time they will demand that physical law is only descriptive. Notice how Dawkins seems offer physical law and evolution almost as an er zots alternative to God. This is practically a liturgical statement one awaits the following hymns. Yet in taking the prescriptive view Dawkins leaves his view open to my God argument "Fire in the Equasions:


1) Naturalism assumes cause/effect.
2) c/a governed by laws of physics.

3) Laws of physics must have orgnaizing principal

4) Mind is the only example for organizing principal

5) An Organizing principal based upon Mind that creates everything is called "God."


1) Naturalists assume necessity of naturlaistic cause and effect (from empirical observation).

Dictonary of Philosphy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism" "...the belief that everything that exists is ethier matter or entirely dependent upon matter for its existence." Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999) http://www.ctns.org/Information/information.html Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?(this source is already linked above) "...One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of preceding physical causes.." Science and The Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead. NY: free Press, 1925, (1953) p.76

"We are content with superficial orderings form diverse arbitrary starting points. ... sciene which is employed in their deveopment [modern thought] is based upon a philosophy which asserts that physical casation is supreme, and which disjoins the physical cause from the final end. It is not popular to dwell upon the absolute contradiction here involved."[Whitehead was an atheist]
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html Cambridge Relativity and Quantum Gravity. 1996, University of Cambridge The physical laws that govern the universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time. In classical physics, if the initial state of a system is specified exactly then the subsequent motion will be completely predictable.

2) Therefore, if we agree with them, it is logical to assume naturalistic cause and effect as background concition to the emergence and/or production of the universe.

Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA IMAGE/POETRY Education and Public Outreach program

Q:Which came first, matter or physical laws?

"We do not know, but matter is derivative from energy, and energy is derivative from 'field' so in some sense, the physical laws that determine the quantum dynamics of fields must have been primary, with matter as we know it coming much later."

3) Since physical laws would have to proceed matter/energy, they would have to reside in some organizing principle (such as a mind?) since they could not reside in the workings of universe that did not yet exist.

This leads to a Dilemma:

a) Either the laws of physics are general law like statements demanding a law giver (law implies a law giver)

b) Or they are mere tendencies which mark conventional frames of reference for our observations of the uiverse.

*If the former, than since all products of the natural world require a cause, what causes the laws of physics? It seems there must either be an infinite regress of causes for physical laws, or a single organizing principle capable of directing physical law; such as a mind?

*If the latter, than the skeptic loses the lock on scientific rationality and with it, the basis upon which to critique religious belief as “unscientific.” After all, just because we don’t notice regular tendencies toward supernatural effects does not mean that they are impossible, if physical laws are nothing but mere tendencies.
4)Major Physicists propose Unitive principle they call "God."

MetaList on Scinece and religion

Stephen Hawking's God

In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.

Ok These guys are not talking about the God of the Bible, but the fact that they do resort to organizing principle proves my basic point. They can't just leave the laws of phyiscs unexplained, they have to resort to organizing principle that ties it all up in one neat package. But why assume that principle can't be the personal God of the Bible? The rest of this Website argues that it is. But the main point here is that it is very logical to assume an organizing principle such a mind which orgainizes and contians physical laws.But "which god" is dealt with else where. at the very least this argument gives us a Spinza-like God.

5) Mind is best explanation for organizing principal.

This principal would not dwell in any location, since it must proceed the existence of all physical matter and objects. It cannot resides in any location, or in the actions of a energy and matter, since it must proceed them for them to come to be, or to exist. Mind is the only thing that explians:

a. non physical location--no topos

b. Organizing function; organizing information and sturctures. The major element of mind is organization and containment of information. Like a genetic structure has to reside in genes, where does an organizing pricipal for the universe reside? In a mind that creates the universe?

6) A mind that contians physical law can be said to be creator and thus God. Therefore,if we assume physical law there must be a "lawgiver," therefore, God exists QED

Corollary:Science cannot Explain Laws of Physics

A. Cause of Physical Laws Unknown

1)Physical Law Merely Assumed to Exist.

OFFICE OF DR. ROBERT C. KOONS Post-Agnostic Science:How Physics Is RevivingThe Argument From Design

Robert C. Koons

Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712

"Some have objected that the anthropic coincidences cannot be explained, since they involve the fundamental laws of nature. The laws of nature are used in explaining other things -- they themselves cannot be explained. They are rock-bottom, matters of physical necessity, immutable and uncased. This objection is sometimes based on actual scientific practice -- scientists seek to discover the laws of nature and to use these laws in constructing explanations of phenomena. They do not try to explain the laws of nature themselves. There are several points to make in response to this."

2) Skeptics object, but Some scientist now Ask.

Paul Davies, Author of God and The New Physics, and The Mind of God, skeptic turned believer due to the new evidence on design. From First Things, Tempelton Award address:

"All the richness and diversity of matter and energy we observe today has emerged since the beginning in a long and complicated sequence of self- organizing physical processes. The laws of physics not only permit a universe to originate spontaneously, but they encourage it to organize and complexity itself to the point where conscious beings emerge who can look back on the great cosmic drama and reflect on what it all means."

"Now you may think I have written God entirely out of the picture. Who needs a God when the laws of physics can do such a splendid job? But we are bound to return to that burning question:
Where do the laws of physics come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? Most especially: Why a set of laws that drives the searing, featureless gases coughed out of the big bang toward life and consciousness and intelligence and cultural activities such as religion, art, mathematics, and science?"
Koons, (Ibid.) "...It is no longer true that scientists never seek to explain the laws of nature. Much of recent cosmology and unified force theory has attempted to do that. ...even if scientists never did attempt to explain the fundamental laws, it would still be an open question whether they should do so. Finally, whether something can or should be explained is itself an empirical matter, to be decided on a case by case basis, and not on the basis of dogmatic, a priori pronouncements. The anthropic coincidences are themselves excellent evidence that the laws of nature can and should be explained. If the laws really were absolute rock bottom, inexplicable brute facts, then we would be faced with a set of inexplicable coincidences. If the only price we have to pay in order to explain these coincidences is to revise our beliefs about the rock-bottom status of physical laws, this is a small price to pay."

B. How do Physical Laws make a universe?
Stephen Barr

"The laws of physics are proposed by some, as brought out by Furgesson, as constituting a "final cause" in place of God. This view is actually suggestive of an inversion and can be turned around into an argument for the exist of God. Barr states "The more serious problem with this idea of laws of physics as necessary first cause is that it is based on an elementary confusion. At most the laws of physics could be said to be the 'formal cause' of the physical universe, whereas by first cause is meant efficient cause, the cause of its very existence. Hawking himself asked precisely the right question when he wrote 'even if there is only one possible unified theory is it just a set of rules and equations? What is it that breaths fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science constituting a mathematical model cannot answer the question of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.' That is decisive--crushing...." (in First Things)

But Dawkins has more mistakes to make in his insistence upon a atheist straw man God. I'll follow that trajectory in part II...coming soon to a blog new you.

Ironically Dawkins makes a most telling statement:

Wouldn't we be tempted to fall on our knees and worship them, as a medieval peasant might if suddenly confronted with such miracles as a Boeing 747, a mobile telephone or Google Earth? But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reason. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us. Making the universe is the one thing no intelligence, however superhuman, could do, because an intelligence is complex—statistically improbable —and therefore had to emerge, by gradual degrees, from simpler beginnings: from a lifeless universe—the miracle-free zone that is physics.

Of course he thinks he's making a comment on the primitive superstitious mind and how it turns ordinary things we understand into "supernatural." But the irony is this statement really tells us more about Dawkins and the atheist than about medieval peasants. Rather than describing the mind of primitive mind it is rather a window in the atheist mind and shows what they deify; themselves, their own control of nature, their gadgetry, what the assume "primitives" would worship that they so easy understand (making them the objects of worship). It also shows us their need of God. They have jacked down the glamor of the divine from an eternal mystery to something they think have a handle upon, laws of physics, but of course they can't really tell us anything about them. Where are they kept? what makes them happen? How can they exist before there is a universe to describe? The faint trace of mystery and thus of deity lingers in Dawkin's liturgical praise of his own interests.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Responding to Rex on his Defense of No True Scotsman

I made a criticism of the way atheists use the so called "no true Scotsman  fallacy." Rex writes a long defense of it so I think it deserves attention here.


One is that when a christian does something wrong, like say murdering a doctor in a church because gawd told him that the doctor was a tool of satan, then immediately all of the other Christians will say, "well he did this horrible thing, so he wasn't a true christian". That is a problem.


This is typical of the way this guy thinks. First of all how many Christians murder doctors in chruch? this is a very rare event. It's maybe 1 in a billion? Probably more but more like 1 in 25 million. I know I have not murdered a doctor in weeks. "All the other Chrsitians say..." is that really the case. All Christians said that about the shooting of abortion doctors? I didn't. The vast overwhelming majority of Christians do not kill doctors and do not want anyone to be killed. This is the propaganda o the hate group. They have a hysterical of Christianity and they see Christians as evil stupid monsters they want every to believe that Christians are running around murdering everyone. He's right that the issue is about saying "X was not a true Y" in cases where X is used to commit the fallacy of guilt by association.

This is what Rex is doing and its' what the hate group does, they want to use the fallacy of guilt by association to connect the actions of the loonies to those of the main stream. Now in my original criticism I said that the real no true Scotsman fallacy works by appealing to some group that are not chosen voluntarily. That's why it's called "no true Scotsman" and not true dentist. Because you don't choose to be a Scotsman, that's what makes the idea that we can't predict what a true Scotsman will do. But the same token we can predict what a true membrane of a voluntary group whose membership turns upon the acceptance of the membership upon a code of behavior. You don't sign up to be a Scotsman you are born there. So you can't say "no true Scotsman would do X" because maybe they would, Scotsmen have all kinds of different views. But you can say "no true birdwatcher would knowing kill a cedar waxwing." You can say "no true member of the woman hater's club would marry a woman." They might, especially if they are one of the three stooges. But then they would cease to be members of the club. So it's still a true statement. Birdwatchers and women haters are people do these things becasue they want to so we can say a true birdwatcher would not kill birds. Christianity is also something one joins up for. So we can say "a true is one who lives up to the code of Jesus' teachings." Because that's the idea that one becomes a Christian to fulfill.


If someone buys into the whole John 3:16 thing, and SELF IDENTIFIES as a christian, then that is how they are grouped.


John 3:16 has noting to do with self identification. It says to enter the kingdom of God you must be born again. It's talking about a spiritual experience, not self identification. Even so Rex's argument is backwards o logic. If you join by your own desire then agree to live up to the code so it is possible to compare one's behavior to a standard and say "a true X does not do that." But the true fallacy, which atheists are misusing doesn't apply to volunteer groups or self identification it applies to where you are born: thus "Scotsman" not psychologist.

Hitler self identified as a Catholic.
(1) he was not, he was born into a Catholic family when  he was old enough to choose his own faith he abandoned it in favor of the occult.

(2) you are doing the fallacy in reverse. 

The fallacy says you can't know what a member of a group will do so you can't say a "ture something or other" wouldn't do that. But you are trying to say that a Christian is a  murdering piece of shit looking for a Nazi party to join. So you are actually "a true Christian will X" as long as X is murder, rape, true lies, bunch of bad stuff.

Of course he will play the game they always play and deny that he's saying this. Well then what's the point of saying Hitler was a Christian? Obviously if they are thinking this guilt by association thing anyway then clearly they are associating Hitler with Christianity and then they would have to be blaming Christianity as the cause of Hitler-type behavior. Which is nothing more tan commuting the fallacy they say is a wrong idea and you can't think that way. Rex is going to say that by arguing Hitler was a Christian he's showing "true Christians" don't live up the values they claim to embrace. But he's begging the question because you hasn't given us any way to establish that Hitler was  "true" Christian Since Christianity is a volunteer outfit and it means one intends to live up to a standard of behavior then obviously there's a basis of comparison as to what a "true" Christian does so we can say Hitler was not one.

On any message board where atheists ridicule Christians, any day of the week, you can find half a dozen atheists displaying this kind of circular abarudist attempt at false logic.


When all of the members of the Hutaree Christian Militia were arrested for conspiracy to commit domestic terrorism, immediately the gawd teamers said that they were not true christians. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. These loonies were doing gawds work the best way that they could interpret it, they self identify as christians, and the outside world's opinion makes no difference.


Yea it does work that way. Because Christians follow Jesus, Jesus said turn the other cheek, He told Peter "put away your sword." So true Christians don't go around fighting with guns becuase that's not what Jesus wanted. Again we see the circular reasoning. Why should we think those guys are Christians? Well because Rex wants me them to be. They follow Jesus' teachings, but they call themselves "Christians" they can't be hypocrites because that we be like saying Christians aren't evil. So what we find is we can committ the fallacy of no true Scotsman if by that we mean something bad bout Chrsitians, but we can't if we mean something good.

No True Scotsman Fallacy: No True Christian would murder a doctor in cold blood.

Not the No True Scotsman Fallacy but a fact: Christians are all evil and stupid and just can't waint to murder.

Christianity has tried for centuries to take credit for every good thing in the world, and chalk up everything bad to non belief or the work of the devil.


The Russians did it first. Personally I am willing to admit Christians did not invent diet cola, the game "monopoly" or swizzle sticks . But I wish we had invited the latter two. I love Monopoly and swizzle sticks..


Sorry, but you don't get off that easy any more. You gotta take the good with the bad, and lately with the Catholic pedophiles, and with the christian leadership blaming earthquakes on sin, the bad for the gawd team is front page news.

I think the problem he understands so little about Christianity he confesses with American citizenship and membership in NATO and other cultural identification. He doesn't seem to understand that being a Christian is a voluntary act that invovles emulation of a set of principles and the development of an inner life that fosters commitment to ideas of love and peace. He thinks one is born a Christian.

When an atheist does something bad, we have to take it on the chin and say yep, he did it and he should be punished.


Christians would probably stop doing that if you guys would stop making this stupid guilt by association sort of thinking. That's probably half why we say such tings, to try and demonstrate to you how unfair your own stereotyping is. then of course there are the blood thirsty satanic minions who crowd the atheists meeting halls.... what?


Besides, christianity is so splintered, with so many sects and sub sects, that they all conflict enough that there is no sorting out who is a true christian any other way than how they identify themselves. The Catholics don't consider any other sect to be true christians, nor do the protestants, or the baptists etc.

Then if they are all different how can you blame them for the actions of the extremists? But there is still the teachings of Jesus, which is the origin of Christianity and it's what Christians are converted on the basis to follow.


Self identification is the only real way to group them.


Self identifications provides a basis for comparison. Being  a Christian is about following Jesus. To the extent that one acts contrary to Jesus teachings one is not a true Christian. If you want to base it up on a  standard only God knows, such as the heart, then you still can't stereotype but you can say so and so is not exhibiting true Christianity. So it's not a matter of judging and saying "the guy shot the doctor is not saved, but we can say he's not living up to the idea of a true Christian at the moment." That's part of the problem is many apologists don't bother to keep things straight. It's human nature short hand things. It is an inadequate short hand to say "xi is not a true Christian" we should say "X is not living up to true Christianity in doing Y."


Besides, you like to repeat over and over that Christians make up 80% of this country, and that number would be much smaller if the people who are not "true" Christians were removed from the list.


yes but arguments about how many there are stem from answering the atheist augments which try to inflate their numbers and their assertions that their views are normal and their little 3% represent the normal people and the 90% who believe in God represent a bunch of crack pot idiots who can't wait to murder. If atheists would cease all of these fallacious and invalid arguments about numbers and association and bad analogies and so forth then Christians would stop worrying about such answers.

You can't have it both ways.


I don't. you are trying to have it both ways. you are trying to have it  where if they do something evil they are true Christians and if hey do good then they don't represent anybody.

No true atheist would reason like that. btw you have misspelled a bunch of words in this. no true atheist would do that!

no true atheist would laugh at my jokes. nor true Christians either.

Answering the Fallacy of The "No True Scotsman Fallacy"


There is a ploy practiced by many atheist of the type who inhabit places such as the Secular Web and Infidel guy. It's been so institutionalized it's almost a mortar. In fact I've seen this kind of things so many times now, when the Christian apologists get together they can stamp it out, but no soon will they rid the net of one institutionalized atheist fallacy, than another will rear its ugly head.

The fallacy to which I reefer here is the "No true Scotsman," fallacy (NSF). I dot' know the etymology exactly, but the general idea is that in the heat of argument one is likely to say something like "no true American would ever (do whatever)" The way it's used is this:

Atheist claims something like "Hitler was a Christian." The Christian makes the mistake of saying "O but he wasn't a true Christian because bah, so the atheist says 'that's the NTSF So without even thinking about it, they just dogmatically declare anyone was ever a Christian of any kind to have always been one. Once a Christian always a Christian (unless you become an atheist a post on the secular we) and then anything you do that's negative pertains to Christianity as the upshot of being a chrisiatn. So Mao was a Christian because he heard a Bible verse once, therefore, Christianity makes you become the Chairman of the Chinese communist party and write little red books.

This has become such a mantra that it cancels any kind of critical thought. Anytime any apologist comes near any sort of questioning as to one's Christian credentials the atheist says something like "I hear bag pipes playing." We need to make up a Nam for the fallacy of calling everything the no true Scotsman fallacy. What really amusing is that they are using the fallacy in the wrong way, as though they dot' really know what it means! The true fallacy is aimed at people who try to use patriotism to win arguments. No true American would call for pulling out of Irk (or Vietnam or whatever hopeless mess we've gotten ourselves into this decade). But that is not the same saying that any time one says "so and so Is not a Christian" it's the fallacy. That fallacy has nothing to do with the commitment level of a particular individual. It has to do with the way in which I construct another perinea's commitment level. If the commitment level of an individual can be demonstrated toward some affiliation then obviously that person can be said to be or not to be "a true so and so" (whatever it is). The only requisite criteria would be that there must be clear guidelines as to what a true so and so is about. That's why the no true Scotsman thing is a fallacy, because there is no way to know what a true Scotsman would say about any given issue, since being a Scotsman (or an American) is rarely a voluntary affiliation. Of course there are cases in which we CNA say no true Scotsman would do X and it not be fallacious. Fore example; no true Scotsman is born in China of Chinese patrons who no relation of any kind of with Scotland and who have never been to Scotland. Such a person hardly had any claim to being a Scotsman, but even in such a case the idea of being a Scotsman is still rather vel. Perhaps one coulee be a true Scotsman if one pinched pennies, played golf, kept sheep, ate fried Mars bars, and wore lad, even if one had never been to Scotland and was not Celtic origin.

The idea of being a Christian is a bit more voluntary than being a Scotsman, thus it is a big less difficult to pin down. This is true, moreover, because Jesus did says something about what is followers would do and would not do. We can say "no true Christian would be anti-Semitic" since Christ was Semitic. Since worshiping Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God is part of being a true Christian, and this is stated in the manifesto (the Bible) then we just might conclude that one who doesn't' do that is not a Christian. Moreover, the church itself laid down guidelines for being member of the Christian community (the church invented the word "Christian" not Jesus). Those guidelines are embodied in the creeds. So in fact yes we can exactly say with no fear of contradiction or of fallacy that no true Christian would ever say anything contrary to the creeds. Because to say that is to be an untrue Christian. Paul said no one by can say by the power of the Spirit "Jesus be cursed" (1 OCR). He was not committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. He was laying down a statement of spiritual fact. So we can say based upon this fact, "no true Christian prophet can say by the power of God that Jesus is cursed." This is a factual statement, given the assumptions of Christian belief. and not the NSF.

It would not be smart to concentrate too hard on stamping out this silly mortar of the atheists. They will only replace it with another. In the mean time, we know to deal with it, we can always use it to our advantage. If it is a fallacy to argue that so and so wasn't' a Christian, because Christianity is very diverse and we can't say who is and who is not and the attempt to try is always a fallacy, then it must also be the same fallacy to say "all Christians do x." The idea that Christianity causes all these social harms and leads people to be right winners is also the same fallacy.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Is Christaintiy Dying out? Wht do the Stats show?


Many atheists seem agree with this idea, it's the fruit of bogus atheist social sciences.

On my board Doxa Forums
Postby Ophir's Gopher on Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:10 am 

I never thought I'd witness it in my lifetime. We're actually witnessing the death of the major fear-based religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It's fascinating and beautiful to behold these creeds collapsing under the weight of dogmatic fundamentalism and completely untenable perceptions of reality. Pick any Abrahamic religion, and I can explain how it undid itself and why, at least in its current state, it cannot gain back any of the momentum it had. These modes of belief are dying; if they are not dying then they are simply evolving into extremely liberal beliefs that are a vapor of what they once were.

On poster sites an article, from Daily Kos Blog "Beleif in God Pumbits among younger generation."
by Ukit

Sat Apr 17, 2010 at 01:17:48 PM PDT

 In reading the article one can see things are not always what they seem.

that article quotes my Pew study and shows a rise from 90s to the oughts. So it's actually going up for generation X. That's going to be important latter. At this point observe the optimism of atheists in the past have led them to misread studies:

CARM (02/28/2008)

a thread called

"Good News--New Study supports rising tide of non belief!"

The Study in Question is the Pew Forum on Religion and public Life study


U.S. Religious Land Scape June 28, 2008.

Great news--new study supports the rising tide of Nonbelief

The Pew Center for Religion and the Public Life just came out with a new large poll on religious affiliations in the U.S. http://religions.pewforum.org. Tally up the numbers, and you'll see that Christians make up about 76.8 percent of the U.S. population, and those with no affiliation (atheists, agnostics, don't identify with any religious group but may consider themselves vaguely "spiritual") was 16.1 percent. Another .8 percent said the don't know or refused to answer--since that is not what any God-fearing religious person would say, I would add it to the "No Affilation" side of the ledger. Rounding, we have Christians as 77% and the non-religious at 17%. All other religions are in the low single digits.

The study overall found that people move around quite a bit religiously and a large percentage don't have the same religion as their parents. However, the "no affiliation" group was clearly growing and were losing far few people than they were gaining. The non-belief crowd is like a slow rising flood--there was a time we would have been in the low single digits, but now we are up to 17% overall and are an even higher percentage of the young. With each passing generation, more and more people are considering themselves as non-religious.

In my lifetime, I expect to see this number get up to 25% or more overall, and my kids could see a USA where the majority of Americans are finally secular rather than religious in their world view. Hallelujah!

Despite the positively stated title and the exultation in the closing line, some atheists actually said "no claim has been made."

he's trying to claim atheism at 17% this is such folly. They are assuming affiliation is synonymous with belief in God! So clearly foolish and when one examines the study the breakdown of unaffiliated the actual number given to atheist population in America is 1.6%! they are counting anyone not a Christian as an atheist! He failed to read the decimal.

(for the first page of the study).

This study actually shows atheism shrinking as the research I have done previously indicated it was at 3% of US pop. they have at 1.6%.

I find atheists doing this all the time. I've seen them count all of Buddhism as atheism so they can say they are a major world religion. IF they really believe they are right, why aren't they just content to be right? why do they take such solace in bogus inflation of numbers? Gallop shows more people in Japan are Christian than ever before.

The category of "non affiliated" leaves room for religious belief. but to be fair, he wasn't just ignorant of what decimal points do. The whole category happened to be 16% and the atheists 1.6% so he was going by the category, not taking out the decimal.

still, he should have known.

*Adherents.com = 4% U.S. Pop is Ahtiest

Adherents.com shows Atheists at 0.4% of U.S. Population.

Atheist 1990 adult pop: 902,000 2004= 1,272,986 Percentrage of Pop = 0.4%

a note on this statistical table says:

*Gallup polls show 6% U.S. Pop with 3% error

Gallup organization

finds 6% atheist in U.S. 2008, within 3% margin of error this agrees with the other polls.

May 9-11, 2008.

Which of the following statements comes closest to your belief about God -- you believe in God, you don't believe in God, but you do believe in a universal spirit or higher power, or you don't believe in either? (findings: 6% say Neither, 78% believe in God, 15% beleive in universal spirit, 1% no opinion).

*Pew Study at top = 1.6% U.S. Pop

2004 total population numbers were calculated by multiplying each group's percent of the total adult 2001 population (207,882,353) by the 2004 total population (using the June 1, 2004 U.S. Census Bureau extrapolated estimate of 293,382,953 total Americans). The U.S. Census Bureau total U.S. population estimate for 2000, based on the actual 2000 Census, was: 281,421,906. The U.S. Census Bureau total U.S. population estimate for July 1, 2001 was: 293,655,404. The adult (ages 18 and over) population estimate for July 1, 2001 was: 220,377,406. The total adult population for 2001 used in the 2001 ARIS study (apparently counting only adults aged 21 and over) was: 207,882,353. For 2001 figures, see: 293655404http://www.census.gov/popest/states/asrh/SC-est2004-01.html. This method of extrapolating the 2004 total population of each religious group from the 2001 adult population of each group does not factor in differences in the average number of children per adult for each religious group.

While stats on Christian population have been underrated! New study finds more Christians in Japan than previous thought.

Moe People Claim Christian Faith in Japan

Audrey Barrick
Sun, Mar. 19 2006 10:24 AM ET

The latest Gallup poll revealed a much higher percentage of Christians in Japan compared to previous surveys, including a surprising high number of teens who claimed the Christian faith.

More People Claim Christian Faith in Japan

Japanese people walk along Omotesando, a fashionable street in Tokyo, March 8, 2006. The latest Gallup poll revealed a much higher percentage of Christians in Japan compared to previous surveys, including a surprising high number of teens who claimed the

In a country where only one percent is Christian among those who claim a faith, findings from one of the most extensive surveys of the country ever taken showed a Christian population of six percent. Meanwhile, the most popular and traditional religions – Buddhism and Shintoism – suffered declines.

Of the 30 percent of adults who claimed to have a religion, 75 percent considered themselves Buddhists, 19 percent Shintoists and 12 percent Christians, according to the Gallup Organization. Japanese youth revealed even more alarming statistics. Of the 20 percent who professed to have a religion, 60 percent called themselves Buddhists, 36 percent Christians and Shintoists.

"These projections mean that seven percent of the total teenage population say they are Christians," said George Gallup Jr. who called the numbers "stunning."

The study - the single largest study ever attempted, according to the social scientists in Japan - examined preteens, teens, young adults, adults and seniors.

"When they saw the design of the questionnaire, Japanese experts argued that the Japanese would never answer the socially delicate and/or the highly personal questions," said Bill McKay, project research director. "However, it was our professional hunch that the Japanese were ready to talk and when they did they told us more than we had asked for. The data is the most revealing look behind the face of Japan and shatters many WWII myths of the Japanese culture."

McKay is also one of the producers of a documentary that is slated for release later this year. The poll was conducted in association with American Trademark Research and MJM Group in 2001 for use in the documentary.

"In my 50 years of polling, there has been no study that I would consider as important as this one, because it provides insight into a fascinating culture," said Gallup.

Delving into more specific attitudes, the poll also found a note of hopelessness in the responses to questions related to morality, spirituality and general views about life.

"And there is little evidence of eternal hope, although a considerable number do believe in some form of life afterlife," noted Gallup. And "there is little belief in 'absolutes,' and this is true across the all-generational groups."

In comparison to teens in the United States, Japanese teens showed a pessimistic outlook on life. Previous studies found that 85 percent of teens in Japan wondered why they existed while 22 percent of U.S. teens had the same thought. Additionally, 13 percent of Japanese teens always see a reason for their being on Earth compared to 76 percent of teens in the U.S, and 11 percent of Japanese teens wished they had never been born while 3 percent of U.S. teens wished the same.

Within an estimated population of 127.4 million in Japan, academics estimate that 20 to 30 percent of adults actively practice a particular faith, but the Agency for Cultural Affairs reported in 2003 that 213,826,700 citizens claimed a religion, according to the U.S. Department of State's latest International Religious Freedom Report.

Postby Metacrock on Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:59 am
from the Pew article about thier study linked in the article Fleet quoted:


Yet in other ways, Millennials remain fairly traditional in their religious beliefs and practices. Pew Research Center surveys show, for instance, that young adults' beliefs about life after death and the existence of heaven, hell and miracles closely resemble the beliefs of older people today. Though young adults pray less often than their elders do today, the number of young adults who say they pray every day rivals the portion of young people who said the same in prior decades. And though belief in God is lower among young adults than among older adults, Millennials say they believe in God with absolute certainty at rates similar to those seen among Gen Xers a decade ago. This suggests that some of the religious differences between younger and older Americans today are not entirely generational but result in part from people's tendency to place greater emphasis on religion as they age.
A Note on Sources
and Methods

This report is based on data from a variety of sources, including Pew Research Center surveys, which are used primarily to compare young adults with older adults today. General Social Surveys and Gallup surveys are used primarily for cohort analyses, which compare young adults today with previous generations when they were in their 20s and early 30s. While the surveys explore similar topics, exact question wording and results vary from survey to survey.

Present-day comparisons are made between adults ages 18-29 and those 30 and older. By contrast, the cohort analyses define generations based on respondents’ year of birth. There is significant - but not complete - overlap between the two approaches. That is, in the present-day analyses, depending on the year of the survey being analyzed, some in the 18-29 age group are actually young members of Generation X (defined here as those born from 1965 to 1980) and not true members of the Millennial Generation (defined here as those born after 1980).

In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and less prone to see Hollywood as threatening their moral values. At the same time, Millennials are no less convinced than their elders that there are absolute standards of right and wrong. And they are slightly more supportive than their elders of government efforts to protect morality, as well as somewhat more comfortable with involvement in politics by churches and other houses of worship.

It's a big mistake to think that young people represent the same views they will hold in middle age. It's common that their rates of disaffection for traditional affiliation will be higher in youth than in middle age.

Notice on the chart at the bottom of the page on the Pew article it shows the percentages for young people. the total for 18 to 29 is 68%. That's the general Christian category. Meaning all Christian groups taken together. Note: the chart is showing not the percentage of identification but the percentage of young who accept Bible as literal word of God!

Total for over 30 81%


for Evangelical 22%

Mainline 12%

30+ 27

19 respectively.

The older group always has a higher level of identification to the group. Look at the chart it's true across the board.

What we see above shows that Generation X is increasing (somewhat) it's identification, we find that the older generations are always more identified with an institution or tradition than young people. young  people in America still possess the core values necessary to Christainity.

Notice that the charts in the article from the blog were not about the percentage identification but the percentage of young people believing the Bible is literal and inerrant. When the Pew article shows us their worth with young people we find 18-30 is still above 60%. It goes up as the ages go up. What this tells us is, it's not slipping that far with the youth and it's not hopes that they will come back as they get older.

The actual figure (pew) of percentage of disaffected is 22% and that does represent a doubling of the 70s. The 70s were the "Jesus freak ear" the great revival the Charismatic movement began. We should not expect that to be the norm of participation of youth a religious tradition. So we really shouldn't care the current era to the 70s. There is cause for concern and the disaffection I would think is lately due to hypocrisy. There is always going to be hypocrisy in the chruch, the Regan era galvanized the fundamentalists for the right wing making it worse.

None of this indicates dying out of Christianity.

Here's an exchagne on my baord with a guy called "Ophir's Gopher"

It's definitely morphing into something unrecognizable and far more liberal.

I doubt that. O am I know it will eventually. Its' done it before. A Christian Palestine in 332 would n ot recognize a Christian from England in 1242, who would not recognize a Christian in Teas in 1852 who would not understand or recognize me and I believe.

There was a time when the average popular conception of Christianity was that you had to die for your faith to go to heaven. change is not death. It doesn't' matter how it changes the reality of God is there.

That was my point all along. Perhaps these religions aren't dying. Maybe only the dogmatic/fundamentalist core is collapsing. either way, it's incredibly interesting to watch and certainly nothing to be threatened by or depressed about. This is a good thing, and I'm priveledged to see it happening.


Yea, I'll go along with that.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Great Answers on the Education thing

I don't know if these people are atheists or Christians. I will try to find out. But some good sharp people came along and rubbed that Username guys' nose in it. I want you to see their answers.

D = Dreidel
A = Amabele

these are the "sharp people who came along"

  1. Default

    D. has a point in that most business teachers teach business as working in a 9-5 job or preparing for one. I don't think business teachers teach people how to run business which, IMO, is what they should be doing. And I also think D. has a point in that people should have a solid liberal arts foundation in any good education, perhaps business degrees don't have that.
    The day she was maimed
    She let out a wail
    and said to herself
    I shall prevail

    I shall reign in my big open world
    where the black abyss cannot be heard
    away from the insane civilization
    where reality is trivialization

    I shall stand free
    I shall stand tall
    they didn't care
    they didn't touch me at all
  2. By the way, I never said business was useless. I said a Business Studies degree was useless from a utilitarian standpoint, no more useful to the business environment than an Arts degree. If you're going to spend 80 yrs or so of your life slaving away trying to earn a living, three years of your time to study something you enjoy and to learn about the real world is hardly a waste of time in the grand scheme of a person's life. It might be a waste as far as a business is concerned, but it's not a waste as far as humanity is concerned. Money is supposed to be a tool to be used by humans, not vice versa.
  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    I think that is a fair generalization.
    It's often said that the greatness of a culture can be judged by the quality of it's museums. Not because Art is great in itself, but that the culture has stabilized and maintained peace long enough for there to be leisure time.

    These "selfish" pursuits of the Arts means that there are a vast majority of people actually working to support the leisure time of others - enough people are being fed, housed and clothed so little Johnnie can play in a rock band during the years he would be most physically productive and/or best warrior.
    Oh, so all our culture, history, art, religion and philosophy is nothing but selfish "leisure" to serve and sponge off the business sector workers? That's the most retarded claim I've ever heard. In fact, if you actually studied history, you'd know that the world didn't switch from an agrarian to a business economy until relatively recently. On the other hand, all of the aforementioned parts of our culture are thousands of years old. You are clearly an idol [money] worshipper.

    By the way, in western society, most of the economy and the businesses aren't involved in producing anything, anyway. They make money from money, they're basically ripping off the countries in the world which do produce goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The fact that Metacrock, and others, can pursue their fancy degree is because there are millions of people tending to the business of maintaining the infrastructure around them - while they slavishly try to figure out how to save their own skin.

    Tell that to Gordon Brown, the current Prime Minister of Great Britain and former Chancellor of the Exchequer. He studied History at Edinburgh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Dreidel, you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but when you grow up and actually try to find a job, you will certainly hope that the guy writing your checks is good at business. We'll see how useless you find it then. It's easy to attack business when you're living on the government's, or daddy and mommies teat.

    Excuse me? Grow up and find a job? I already have a degree, I have worked for my government and for an international bank. I have paid my tax and I saved up money from my paid job to pay for my my degree, so you are way off target with your false assumptions about me. I am studying for this degree not because it will get me a job (although it certainly will!) but because I enjoy the subject and because I'm not some "new money" wannabe from the lower classes. I plan to be as knowledgable and educated as possible and I am paying for it with my own money, so you have zero case against me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    We, who actually work and earn a living for ourselves and others, have a saying about people like you: :"When you can live off your own kill, then you can criticize." 

    You sound like someone who is just bitter and resentful that they never went to university and is stuck in some dead end job. Get over it.

    P.S. It's spelt "cheque".
I be the watches dragnet. What parody! you can see this guy is not oen to take seriously, he's a tea party hack. This D guy is a historian.  I don't know about the other.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

The True Atehsit colors: The Anti-Intellectual Aspect of Hate Group Atheism


a thing from CARM by one of the stupidest peopel I've ever ran into. his screen name is "screename" so very cleaver.

University's need money. They have huge overhead and need to stay profitable. If it means creating degrees in fields that are, well, questionable, many of them will do it. It makes good business sense.

What are some useless degrees, in the sense that they offer little to humanity, or any value to the world?

I submit that Theology is one of those useless degrees. It is popular, because there are so many brainwa... highly suggestive Christians in the world that think they are on to something profound. However, in reality, it is a self-serving field that doesn't honor good thinking in the terms of the proven value of philosophy or science or psychology.


Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
No, phys. ed. and communications are helpful.

You are gullible if you think Universities exist as pinnacles of human thought and motivation. They regularly offer degrees in fields that offer no more value than the people taking the course and the person teaching the course. Don't be naive. Yes, you can get a degree in poetry and then what? You teach poetry to a bunch of people who want to teach poetry to a bunch of people who want to teach poetry?

Fine, at least that is better than theology: Learn theology to tell people what to think about theology.
 same thread a guy named "striving for accuracy:

Quote Originally Posted by 1TrueDisciple View Post
Using your utilitarian criterion, so are degrees in philosophy, dance, art history, general studies, comparative religions, leisure studies, Latin, communications, physical education, women's studies, art therapy, and poetry to name just a few degrees actually awarded by universities today.

Striving for Accuracy answers 1 true disciple
Yep. Bunch o garbage. Not that these studies have no value, obviously, but as a degree? Nonsense. These are classes to break up your schedule and decorate your degree; make a well rounded person, not something to devote your life to. They are hobbies given status they do not deserve.

what a bunch of know nothing. I've never seen a group of people as egar to destroy thought as these guys. You should be an atheist man.

You know nothing about communication. I was a college debater, all college debate coaches are communications professors. That's the degree you get, public speaking, to teach debate. It's vastly useful. noly someone who hasn't taken any courses woudl think it's not worth a degree.

why does learning have to be "useful" to be valuable? most of science is not useful in a direct way. It's only after a bunch of learning for learning sake happens that we can find stuff make to make use of.

with a communication degree you can run any political campaign at any level, break into advertising or any advertising related field. public relations, teach, and a bunch of other things. Everyone should learn public speaking. Even if you don't' do any speaking it bouts your confidence and spurs new learning and makes you feel better about yourself. It's practically psychotherapy. I bet if those kids who killed all the people at Columbine had taken public speaking they would not have done that. I'm serious, it is well known to work as therapy.

there are a whole bunch of jobs related to it, even journalism or announcing.

Universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton were started by religious people to teach religion. did you not know that? It's not like all these universes just a few years ago said "he let's see what other things we can add to make money, I know religion is big money let's add some religion courses."

do you see what's happened. Atheists sued to be the intellectuals, before the internet. Now they are the scum. they are the uneducated rabble who hate books and learning and want to destroy universities. At least they want to destroy liberal arts everything they not able to do well because they are not bright enough.

Dawkins purposely aimed his appeal at such people because he thought if his movement copied the fundies then it would have success like they did.

Atheism has become an anti-intellectual movement. Theology is one of the most intellectual subjects. but people who don't know anything about have not right to say it's not stupid, because you ar just falling your ignorant gums.

Nuclear science is stupid. I know nothing about it so I'm right no?

how do you think Bullet companies get dancers? do you they just say "Ok anyone thinks they can point their toes come on in?" are you so out of the arts and such philistine that you can't figure out that now days these things are a life long pursuit that start in childhood? so obviously a degree in dance is essential if you want a career in dance. Same with Music.

this is so telling. atheists aer such haters of knowledge and they arts they don't want degrees to be given in music. o your cause is really headed for the top. The vast masses are going to flock to you, Not only do they not want you to have any hope when your kid is dying but they don't want to have good music either.

You sound sound a propo form the Witch on the lion the witch and the wardrobe, always winter and never Christmas.

that can be the official atheist slogan, "vote for Always winter and never Christmas."

Thursday, April 8, 2010

The Need of the Atheist Hate Groupie to Mock and Ridicule

 I really can't figure out why atheists are angry when I compare them to Nazis? They are so much like Nazis you would think they try to be like them. They are filled with hate, they base their self esteem on a mythical superiority to a group of who bleieve things they can't understand,they make scape goats out of those they hate and blame all the ills of the wold on them. They want to destroy every vestage of ideas with which they disagree. I don't know how long we are going to tolerate these pests who are trying to destroy civilization.

For two weeks the same little group of troll hounded me by always resounding to everything i said with flip remarks and statements that showed utter contempt for me and everything I care about. When I tried to stand up to them others would come and go "it's your behavior." Because I answered them the way they talked to me, but I's my behavior that was at fault.

 here is a small sample from just one thread.

poster on CARM (troll) Diet Coke says

"wrong" that's the whole post just "wrong" to me, I'm wrong.

I say "No I'm rihgt" he says

I am right he says

No you are wrong.

I say: Meta:

ahahahahaha you really sit here and go "wrong"

"nu uh it's right"

Nu uh it's wrong

"hu uh it's right"

ect ect

wouldn't you?

ahahahahahaha and these guys can't see what you are up to?
 diet coke

You make a statement.

Your statement turns out to be wrong.

You whine.

Quelle surprise.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
what turned out to be wrong? Is that why you spent the whole thread and failed to try even one single time to show scientific data that answered those questions?

Diet coke
Your assertion in the previous post. I can say this is wrong, because I am me and you are not.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I think it's very very obvious that I succeeded totally and absolutely and you lost. you failed you lost you bit the dust big time.
Childish declaration of victory in a game only you're playing.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you whine, all you do is whine. You whine because I wont give in to your bullying. "O he want let me bully him so unfair" that's all you talk about. all you do. whine because I don't given to your bullying.

Diet Coke
But, seriously. Do you honestly think your OP has any merit in it whatsoever?
"With no power comes no responsibility."

"It's just so stupid, isn't it? Beating your wife, I mean, it's your wife. It's like keying your own car."

but he was going "wrong" every time I said right.

Quote Originally Posted by souper genyus View Post
Yes, I know Meta. And, frankly, I would like it if there were more theologians and clergy that talked of these ideas to the average Christians. It seems as though there is a big gap between what the theologians and clergy know and believe about Christian teachings and what the average Christians know and believe about Christianity. My guess is that it is because of money--clergy need to preach to preach to the choir, and the choir loves a skydaddy.
I don't know if I wish that too. It seems rather dogmatic to say that Theologians must follow the pixies rather than the gnome. When one is conjuring up fantasies, there shouldn't be uniformity - and, as we see, there isn't.

Metacrock has more easily defensible definition of God because it is so minimal. Yes, if most clergy brought his idea of God to the public, we'd probably eradicate christianity in a generation. I'm not for that. That's just dogma and a new boss same as the old one.

What Metacrock is struggling with is that he is taking some of the most rarified and esoteric philosophers that many philosophers don't worship, just take some of the ideas, and try to find some way of turning a basic reality, or Necessary condition, into God. It is one big Ontological argument, but he refuses to see it. Basically, he says, "if God exists, by defnition he must be Necessary. Once we find what is Necessary, we find God - and then we can pile on all the other stuff."

But there is no reason to call what may exist as Necessary "God". It may simply be "Brute Fact" - of course, Metacrock will call that God too. It doesn't matter to him as long as the guttural noise is attributed to something real, anything!

Theists, IMO, should understand that the search for both of us is the same: we are trying to discover the nature of reality. Atheists simply don't need to tie it all up in a nice bow before they die and worship it.

Plus, if you really look into Metacrock's claims (and to be fair, they aren't his, but a collection of other peoples), you will see he has aligned himself with the most abstract and ill-defined group of philsophers and ideas. This, I believe, is the next Gap by Theists. To hide their God in ephemeral language so no one really understands it. It keeps God always beyond understanding - which is important when you are trying to dfend the existence of something that doesn't exist.

Being is being. The Ground of Being is a meaningless term. It doesn't help our understanding of anything. It's a metaphor, not a description.

Metacrock, provide an accurate definition of the God you believe in, not one aspect of the thing you are hoping to defend.

Don't nickle and dime us to death. Put it all out there.

I don't have to read things to know they are stupid they just are! don't confuse me with the facts.

Username (that's his name)

bs. You also add things to this definition. STOP being disingenuous! You add "Manifests in Jesus", "is conscious", "desires for Man to know something x", "has a Will", etc.

Metacrock, you are losing credibility throughout the net, and this isn't helping when you start with your "ground of being" crap, and then pile on stuff later.

Your argument is akin to "My dog exists. The definition of a dog is that it has 4 legs." so, people agree that surely your dog can exist since it has four legs, but then you say - "ah, now that you've accepted that, my dog also breathes fire, flies and is hunted by every Knight in the Kingdom!"

have you ever seen anyone so mother fucking stupid? He can't figure out how an arugment is built around a definition. So if you lend add something to it he thinks you are making stuff up because he's stupid to understand about extrapolating.

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Its' just as simple as saying "this is a depiction of an idea" as opposed to saying "this is the literal truth of it."

you have no evdience at all that Crumb ever thought his illustrations where literal depictions of the actual nature of God.
Atheists don't think illustrations such as those depict the actual nature of God because there is no actual nature of God. By and large, we take the same stance that Crumb takes.

that's just a stupid like becasue in every other post they say how wrong it is and i'm cheating to not take the bible literally about a big man in the sky.

you can't argue with stupid people. you have to waste all your time trying to get some meaningless point across that's nothing but knit picking you never get to the important things and they see what you are saying. Just leave stupid people like atheists to their own hell bent devices, let them burn and good enough for them.