Friday, March 25, 2011

Atheists show true interest in discussion

I realize this is not about all atheists, we are talking about the Dawkies.

Essentially in this thread on CARM these Dawkies are admitting that they have no real interest in truth or discussion they are only on message boards to get attention and cause trouble.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?47239-Who-Cares-What-You-Think


atheist poster "Keith"

You have to understand that whoever wrote those paragraphs is probably speaking from the vantage point of someone in a life or death struggle to preach and thereby save souls from the gates of hell and therefore cannot comprehend being on a religious debate forum for entertainment purposes or simply to pass the time. I say if you're happy with your religion stay with it. In the end we will all end up a pile of lifeless bones, whether atheist or theist. I still like to debate though, if for nothing else than to get a reaction out of the die-hard fundie.
Westvelturian

It depends upon what your version of the "truth" is, after all truth is entirely subjective.
Remember to an atheist subjective means "bad," "no good," leave it alone! so that's his notion of the value of truth.

Keith again:


Yes. My TRUE motivation is to take over planet earth and make you all disciples and slaves under my regime.

It doesn't matter to me if you think I'm a troll or if you find my reasons for being here insulting because your opinion of me unfortunately has no affect on my life whatsoever. This is just an Internet discussion forum. Unless I'm doing research, for my job, health, news, automobile, etc. most other websites I visit are in the entertainment category as far as I am concerned, including this one.

Speaking from experience, I think Christians sometimes take religious discussion forums more seriously than non-religious people and for that reason become irritated with those that don't. Why can't I be here simply because I enjoy debating against religion? Why must I have some secret diabolical agenda?
I challenge him on it he says:

*Sigh*
I do care about the truth. In fact, that is precisely why I kicked religion to the curb - it's hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

What I'm NOT so interested in is what YOU perceive as the truth. What I mean is yes I like debating, but in the end what you believe is your own business. Worship and pray to whatever god you believe in, so long as you are not going around blowing up bridges and office buildings.
In other words. I know I'm right I don't need to think about it.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

An Athiest Hoised by Her Own Petard.

on carm today, March 24, 11.

Backup, my candidate for the greatest journalist in Birmingham (he who hath ears to hear...)

says:

and it seems all the open and fair forums on the internet are dominated by atheists, does this mean we control the debate in the free arena of ideas?

Theists only seem to be able to compete if they can control the dialogue.

Is this a sign that their position is weak?
I point out the things I say on Atheist watch how I've proved that atheists roaming the net mock and ridicule and another one pops up and says:


Originally Posted by LibertarianSara View Post
By definition, ridiculous beliefs are worthy of ridicule. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridiculous

I'm sorry you haven't grasped that meta. If you don't want people to make fun of your silly ideas, change them.


I say:

O really little unread head? How is it then that when I Richard your silly garbage and illiterate prattler of atheists everyone goes "you are so insulting. we don't like you you have to insult people1" boooo hooooo! bOOOO HOOOOO!


Here's an old saying you should look up "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." get it? do you? can your little unread head understand what that means?

It means you are the one with the stupid ideas. I am riduling you to make you get over your dumb unread unlearned silly ideas. understand?


if you can do it me why can't I do it to you> why should you be the one to define what the silly idea is?

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Are Atheists Working on Crating Their Own Form of Logic?

Photobucket


I saw this happen on the sec web. They created their own form of Bible scholarship then it became established among them so to argue on that board meant one was in a wired world where the whole of Biblical scholarship was meaningless and you had to learn Bible scholarship form the ground up using their ideas.

Get them out of their board community and they were like uneducated morons compared to the real world Biblical scholarship. They had accepted certain things as facts so many times that they just became facts in the their minds and now how much proof one had to the contrary they were just stuck on those ideas. One such ideas was John Rylands Fragment was like dated to 200AD no scholars agree with.

I see atheist make up their own logical rules then imposing them as though they real rules of logic. These rules are designed to get around God arguments.

(1) you can prove a negative.

no logician anywhere agrees. In fact those who try to prove you can't don't deal with a true negative in the same way as the negative "lack of God." But they just about have it made into a hard and fast rule.

(2) lack of evdience is proof.

it's corollary

(3) Argument form silence is proof


this latter is especially liked by the Jesus mythers.Those guys are also making up their own rules of historiography.

(4) A necessity can only do necessary acts.

(5) contingencies can be independent of other things and could be eternal.

these are all things real logicians abhor.


One of the mjaor one's

(6) argument from analogy.

always a fallacy. can't prove anything with an analogy. I see atheists using them as proof all the time.

Monday, March 21, 2011

New Book on History of Science shows positive role of religion

PhotobucketPhotobucket
James Hannam is a Historian, Ph.D. from Cambridge. He
has also been "Bede" one of the major internet apologists
known for "Bede's library." He is a member of the CARE.



On March 21 a ground breaking work, The Genesis of Science: How The Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2011), by Cambridge-trained historian James Hannam, takes its place in the United States on the shelf alongside other historical classics. The book has already been released in the UK (as God’s Philosophers).

For the last several decades historians of science have known something that still eludes the general public. Thanks to great books such as Margaret Jacob’s The Newtonians[i] or Lindberg and Numbers’ God and Nature,.[ii] the whole field of history of science is routinely aware of the fact that Enlightenment-spawned notions of the church persecuting burgeoning science in the Middle Ages, are just so much propaganda. As Hannam’s book documents there was no rash of would-be Einsteins in the Middle Ages put down and held back persecution of scientific ideas. The reason this book may be destined for status as a classic is two fold: first because Hannam’s engaging and easy style makes the material accessible; secondly because it fills a void not previously filled by the body of work in history of science.

Most of the works in question, such as those mentioned above, either deal with a later period (that of Newton and the Seventeenth or Eighteenth centuries) or they deal with the general sweep of history, touching upon every period and focusing mainly on modern times (such as the Lindberg book does). Hannam actually uncovers the depth of scientific work in the Middle Ages, the extent to which discoveries set up the process of scientific learning, and how the church nurtured it rather than held it back. The scope and details he brings to coverage of the period fill a void in a way other historians have neglected.

The work disabuses the reader of three grand misconceptions that the general public has been fed by non-specialist historical pedagogy at all levels of education: Medieval people did not think the earth was flat and their scholars could prove it was not; the Inquisition never persecuted anyone for doing or thinking about science; and the scientific learning that went on in the Middle Ages, including what the church promoted and enabled, set up the scientific revolution. The Jacob book demonstrates that English church men of the Seventeenth century made Newtonian science possible and boosted it among the general public, thus essentially creating modern science along the way; in the same way and with no less erudition Hannam demonstrates how the developments of the Middle Ages set up those developments in the latter era.

Hannam begins by discussing the history of the idea of the “dark ages.” How did historians come to regard this period after the fall of Rome up to the Renaissance as “the dark ages?” There has been a trend in history as a whole for the last 40 years to de-periodize history. The Renaissance is no longer understood as a period of time but more as a movement that overlapped several periods. One such major source would be Peter Burke, The Renaissance.[iii] According to Hannam, historians originally spoke of the “dark ages” meaning the period had little surviving in the way of documents or texts that furnished a lot of information about the era. It was the Enlightenment philosophers who began using the term in an anti-clerical way, to specifically refer to the church’s attitude toward science and the suppression of learning. It was really in nineteenth century France, Hamman tells us, where the structures of history were periodized and given names that reflect this ideology coming out of the Enlightenment. This was the century when the social sciences were organized and when August Comte began structural functionalism. They were extending the philosopher’s predilections to a re-write of the world.

In fact the centuries immediately after the fall of Rome saw much progress in the way of discoveries. Hannam opens the first chapter with the discussion of these discoveries. The old philosopher-based anti-clerical view sees the period it calls “the dark ages” (from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to after the Norman conquest of 1066) as one in which progress stopped. In reality that era saw much in the way of progress. Western Europe made progress in technological terms, although the beginning of it seems very simple, low tech, unscientific--but it was not the arresting of progress. One of the first aspects of progress with the improvement of the plough, that led to increased food production and population explosion that enabled economic growth and the development of cities eventually. The Normans invented the stirrup that was a military advance and important in their conquest of the Saxons. The importance of conquest was the consolidation of power. There as a power vacuum after the fall of Rome. By consolidating power, greater communication became possible, discoveries could be disseminated. Most the discoveries in that era were in the area of agriculture.

The Genesis of Science is an immense research project pulled off masterfully. Oxford and Cambridge did their jobs in teaching Hannam how to research. It’s a vast understanding and spans the gamut of the field: medieval theology, cosmology, astronomy, even astrology and alchemy, all forms of medieval learning, mathematics--the vast range of human knowledge for people of the Middle Ages are summarized, and all the relevant developments to the story of how modern science emerged from human learning are recounted, yet in an accessible and easy to read style most engaging to the reader. The author proves his thesis that Christianity did not persecute science but nurtured it and enabled it to develop. “Popular opinion, journalistic cliché, and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages was a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups, gunpowder, all appeared in Western Europe between 500 and 1500.” [iv] The compass allowed better navigation and trade and eventually led to discovery of the New World. Twenty million books were produced in the first fifty years after printing press was invented, a veritable explosion of knowledge which contributed in obvious ways to the rise of modern science, down the road. Yet there is a lot more to the story of development than just particular inventions from business and agriculture.

One of the major arguments made by skeptics, especially the “new atheists”, is that philosophy was useless and just “making things up,” but empirical scientific knowledge is factual and true and gives us an accurate understanding of the world. Actual scientists know there is more to it than this, but one hears atheists argue this way. Hannam’s book demonstrates that without the role played by reason, philosophy, and the church modern science would not have developed.

Modern science is a very specific kind of knowledge that blends empirical experimentation with rational analysis. Today we take it for granted and trust it to provide us with accurate information about nature. It’s hard to believe that a few centuries ago this scientific way of thinking hardly existed. Before the edifice of modern science could be built, it required the strong foundations that were laid for it in the middle ages. The cornerstone was a widespread acceptance of reason as a valid tool for discovering truth about our world. Clearly this could not happen without the approval of the Church, which at the time was the guardian of almost all intellectual endeavors. This means that the development of reason and its relationship with faith are both important parts of our story. So prevalent did rational argument become among philosophers during the middle ages that the period deserves to be thought of as the beginning of the “Age of Reason.”[v]

The traditional Enlightenment-philosopher-influenced historian has habitually lauded great individuals, such as Di Vinci for example, as bucking the trends, standing alone against the time, one guy by himself who was brilliant enough o see through the status quo. Yet Hannam points out that when one examines the immediate milieu of such thinkers, it usually turns out that they were products of a going concern, or influenced by trends already in progress around them. However brilliant the innovators, they were nevertheless the outgrowth of a progress that never stopped. One such example is that of St. Anselm of Canterbury, the author of the famous “ontological argument.” Fleeing his father in their native Aosta in the Italian Mont Blanc, across the Alps and into the Rhone valley, the young boy who would become St. Anselm settled for a time in northern France. He found the most dynamic region in Europe at that time. The ferment was around the Cathedrals because they served as focal points of human energy, effort, belief, concern and the use of technology of the day. The cathedral cities of Paris, Chartres, Rheims, and Orleans, provided a magnet that formed a hub of activity, not the least of which was a vital scene for scholarship and philosophy. It was out of this center that Anselm moved forth and helped to produce a theological and philosophical ferment. Skeptics look at medieval philosophy (or don’t look at it closely) and find silly unscientific concepts, but the truth is that these disputes, arguments and ponderings got science going.

Hannam deals with Copernicus and the fact that his system was never the least bit threatened by the church because it was proposed hypothetically and was not a challenge to authority. Hannam demonstrates a rich background that Copernicus drew upon, consisting of many ancient world and "dark age" thinkers known in the middle ages who believed in geocentrically solar system. The final chapter is a tour de force on Galileo demonstrating that his problems were politically driven not based upon any hatred of science by the church.

Overall Hannam has produced a wonderful book, and I think all who care about Christian apologetics, or even just the status of religion in the modern world, need to read it.



[i] Jacob, Margaret C. The Newtonians and the English Revolution: 1689-1720. Ithica New York: Cornell University Press, 1976.

[ii] David C. Lindberg and Ronald l. Numbers, ed, God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encoutner Between Christianity and Science. .University of California Press, 1986.

[iii] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, New York: Macmillian, 1997.

[iv] Hannam, Genesis of Science, xvii

[v] ibid, xix

New Book on History of Science shows postive role of religion

PhotobucketPhotobucket
James Hannam is a Historian, Ph.D. from Cambridge, he
has also been "Bede" one of the major internet apologists
known for "Bede's library." He is a member of the CARE.



On March 21 ground breaking work The Genesis of Science: How The Christian Middle Ages Lunched the Scientific Revolution, (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2011), by Cambridge Trained historian James Hannam takes its place in the United States on the shelf alongside other historical classics. The book has already been released in the UK (as God’s Philosphers). For the last several decades historians of science have known something that still eludes the general public. Thanks to great books such as Margaret Jacob’s The Newtonians[i] or Lindberg and Numbers’ God and Nature,.[ii] the whole field of history of science is routinely aware of the fact that enlightenment spawned notions of the church persecuting burgeoning science in the middle ages are just so much propaganda. As Hannam’s book documents there was no rash of would-be Einstein’s in the middle ages put down and held back persecution of scientific ideas. The reason this book my be destined for status as a classic is two fold: first because Hannam’s engaging and easy style makes the material accessible, secondly because it fills a void not previously filled by the body of work in history of science.

Most of the works in question, such as those mentioned above, either deal with a Latter period (that of Newton and the Seventeenth or Eighteenth centuries) or they deal with the general sweep of history, touching upon every period and focusing mainly on modern times (such as the Lindberg book does). Hannam actually uncovers the depth of scientific work in the middle ages, the extent to which discoveries set up the process of scientific learning and how the church nurtured it rather than held it back. The scope and details he brings to coverage of the period fill a void in a way other historians have neglected. The work disabuses the reader of three grand misconceptions the general public has been fed by non specialist historical pedagogy at all levels of education: Medieval people did not think the earth was flat and their scholars could prove it was not, the inquisition never persecuted anyone for doing or thinking about science, and the scientific learning that went on in the middle ages, including what the church promoted and enabled, set up the scientific revolution. The Jacob book demonstrates that English church men of the Seventeenth century made Newtonian science possible and boosted it among the general public, thus essentially creating modern science along the way; in the same way and with no less erudition Hannam demonstrates how the developments of the Middle Ages set up those developments in the latter era.

Hannam begins by discussing the history of the idea of the “dark ages.” How did historians come to regard this period after the fall of Rome up to the Renaissance as “the dark ages?” There has been a trend in history as a whole for the last 40 years to de-periodize history. The Renaissance is no longer understood as a period of time but more as a movement that overlapped several periods. One such major source would be Peter Burke, The Renaissance.[iii] According to Hannam historically originally spoke of the “dark ages” meaning the period had little surviving in the way of documents or texts that furbished a lot of information about the era. It was the enlightenment philosphes who began using the term in an anti-clerical way, to specifically refer to the church’s attitude toward science and the suppression of learning. It was really in the ninetieth century, Hamman tells us, in France where the structures of history were periodized and given names that reflect this ideology coming out of the enlightenment. This was the century when the social sciences were organized and when August Compte began structural functionalism. The were extending the philosophe’s predilections to a re-write of the world.

In fact the centuries immediately after the fall of Rome saw much progress in the way of discoveries. Hannam opens the first chapter with the discussion of these discoveries. The old philosophe based anti-clerical view sees the period it calls “the dark ages” (fall of the Western Roman empire to middle ages, after the Norman conquest of 1066) as one in which progressed stopped. In reality that era saw much in the way of progress. Western Europe made progress in technological terms, although the beginning of it seems very simple, low tech, unscientific, but it was not the arresting of progress. One of the first aspects of progress with the improvement of the plough, that led to increased food production and population explosion that enabled economic grow and the development of cities eventually. The Normans invented the stirrup that was a military advance and important in their conquest of the Soxons. The important of conquest was the consolidation of power. There as a power vacuum after the fall of Rome. By consolidating power greater communication became possible, discoveries could be disseminated. Most the discoveries in that era were in the area of agriculture.

The Genesis of Science is an immense research project pulled off masterfully. Oxford and Cambridge did their jobs in teaching Hannam how to research. It’s a vast understanding and spans the gamut of the field, medieval theology, cosmology, astronomy, even astrology and alchemy, all forms of medieval learning, mathematics, the vast range of human knowledge for people of the middle ages are summarized and all the relevant developments to the story of how modern science emerged from human learning is recounted, yet in an accessible and easy to read style most engaging to the reader. The author proves his thesis that Christianity did not persecute science but nurtured it and enabled it to develop. “Popular opinion, Journalistic cliché, and misinformed historians not withstanding, recent research has shown that the middle ages was a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups, gunpowder, all appeared in Western Europe between 500 and 1500.” [iv] The compass allowed better navigation and trade and eventually led to discovery of the new world. Twenty million books were produced in the first fifty years after printing press was invented, a veritable explosion of knowledge which contributed in obvious ways to the rise of modern science, down the road. Yet there is a lot more to the story of development than just particular inventions from business and agriculture.

One of the major arguments made by skeptics, especially the “new atheists” is that philosophy was useless and must “making things up,” but empirical scientific knowledge is factual and true gives us an accurate understanding of the world. Actual scientists know there is more to it than this, but one hears atheists argue this way. Hannam’s book demonstrates that without the role played by reason, philosophy, and the church modern science would not have developed.

Modern science is a very specific kind of knowledge that blends empirical experimentation with rational analysis. Today we take it for granted and trust it to provide us with accurate information about nature. It’s hard to believe that a few centuries ago this scientific way of thinking hardly existed. Before the edifice of modern science could be built, it required the strong foundations that were laid for it in the middle ages. The cornerstone was a widespread acceptance of reason as a valid tool for discovering truth about our world. Clearly this could not happen without the approval of the Church, which at the time was the guardian of almost all intellectual endeavors. This means that the development of reason and it’s relationship with faith are both important parts of our story. So prevalent did rational argument become among philosophers during the middle ages that the period deserves to be thought of as the beginning of the “Age of Reason.”[v]

The traditional philosophe influenced historian has habitually lauded great individuals, such as de Vinci for example, as bucking the trends, standing alone against the time, one guy by himself who was brilliant enough o see through the status quo. Yet Hannam points out that when one examines the immediate milieu of such thinkers, it usually turns out that they were products of a going concern, or influenced by trends already in progress around them. However brilliant the innovators, they were nevertheless the outgrowth of a progress that never stopped. One such example is that of St. Anselm of Canterbury, the author of the famous “ontological argument.” Fleeing his father in their native Aosta in the Italian mont Blanc, across the Alps and into the Rhone valley the young boy who would become St. Anselm settled for a time in northern France he found the most dynamic region in Europe at that time. The ferment was around the Cathedrals because they served as focal points of human energy, effort, belief, concern and the use of technology of the day. The cathedral cities of Paris, Cahartres, Reims, and Orleans, provided a magnet that formed a hub of activity, not the least of which was a vital scene for scholarship and philosophy. It was out of this center that Anslem moved forth and helped to produce a theological and philosophical ferment. Skeptics look at medieval philosophy (or don’t look at it closely) and find silly unscientific concepts, the truth is these disputes, arguments and ponderings got science going.

He deals Copernicus and the fact that his system was never the least bit threatened by the chruch because it was proposed hypothetically and was not a challenge to authority. Hannam demonstrates a rich background that Copernicus drew upon consisting of many ancinet world and "dark age" thinkers know in the middle ages who believed in geocentrically solar system. The final chapter is a tour de force on Galileo demonstrating that his problems were politically driven not based upon any hatred of scinece by the chruch. Overall Hannam has produced a wonderful book and I think all who care about Christian apologetic, or even just the status of religion in the modern world need to read it.



[i] Jacob, Margaret C. The Newtonians and the English Revolution: 1689-1720. Ithica New York: Cornell University Press, 1976.

[ii] David C. Lindberg and Ronald l. Numbers, ed, God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encoutner Between Christianity and Science. .University of California Press, 1986.

[iii] Peter Burke, The Renaissance, New York: Macmillian, 1997.

[iv] Hannam, Genesis of Science, xvii

[v] ibid, xix

Friday, March 18, 2011

see my political blog "Need for Shovels"

On Need More Shovels see reports from the nation and CBS News on corporate feudalism and Wisconsin gov's move to destroy unions.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Atheist Confussed about Nature of Presumption and Scientific World View

Photobucket


I wouldn't say such disparaging things about atheists if they didn't pull such sneaky tricks. Now of course I don't mean all atheists. But there are atheist fundies just as there are Christian fundies, and there's an atheist atheism of the gaps kind of argument. The atheist fundie fools himself into thinking that his view is totally empirical and demonstrated by science but "nothing in Christianity is objective," you know they don't understand anything about epistemology when they start demanding "objectivity." Espeicially to demand it from a world view. I can see asking for "objectivity" in the form of veri similitude for a study on air bags in automobiles, for example, but not backing up a world view! That's as idiotic as believing that you are being scientific because you life white lab coats.

The problem is this kind of atheist fundi fools himself into thinking that eh as some real verification and objective demonstration of his world view, but he's only being fooled by a self induced con job. It works like this. First he imposes a self privileging ideology upon the world. He privies doubt, so in his mind doubt comes to equal truth. Then he orients his world view around a value of accepting "only empirical evidence." He cons himself into thinking that he only accept ideas that are proven with empirical scientific evidence. Then attaches such importance to this concept that he is able to make a leap of faith and pretend that somehow valuing induction proves the materialist conclusions that he leaps to. So he think just because he wants all of his positions to be proven with empirical evidence, they must really be so. And of course he convinces himself that the task of science is to protect form religion and then science becomes his get out of hell free card. Let's review these steps.

(1)Impose ideology privilaging doubt
(2)accepts value of empirical data only
(3)leap of faith from value of emprical data to assumption of emprically based conclusions
(3) sanctions with the arua of science.

Of course he has no such data. There is no data that God doesnt' exist or that there is nothing beyond the material world.He has no of proving this at all. But that's OK he says because it's having a scientific way of life that counts. At least his over all view is supported by his love of "objectivity" so that sanctions his conclusions even if logic doesn't' sanction them.

The truth is he has no such proofs and his bold scientific way of life is a sham because he has many assumptions upon which his world view is predicated, the basis of which cannot be supported by science. I've made lists like this before, they include all the basic epistemic assumptions:

(1) The existence of other minds.
(2) that the future will be like the past
(3) that the sun will come up tomorrow
(4) That a world exists external to his own mind.

Now most of these are reasonable assumptions. But the point is he holds them without the possibility of any sort of real direct empirical scientific evidence, all the while claiming that as the basis of his entire world view.

The thing is, I wouldn't mind that so much, but then he tries to use this in contrast to religious thought. Everything that religious thinkers say or do receives hyper criticism from them. He imagines that theologians like Paul Tallich are just glorified sudayschool teachers with nothing going on up stairs. He waves around the word "objectivity" like there's really something to compare.

But he wont evaluate Christniaity on the terms of its own inner logic and every attempt to expalin what is is met with "but that's not objective, you dont' have anyting objective," that's just the illusion created by their value system.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

atheists use rieicule as brain washing

Photobucket


Mocking and ridicule are acts of hate. To mock ideas is to stifle thinking. It's true that some ideas worthy of ridicule, the problem is that accepting such a standard replaces thinking in the minds of those who don't like to think. Thus all one need do is ridicule and idea and the groupies accept the mocking as judgment that the idea is no good, one need to think about the idea. Stupid people and ignorant people always mock things they don't understand. When mocking and ridicule replace real thought in a community then the mere presence of ridicule is enough to stifle thought on the subject.
thus ridicule takes on a hateful aspect, it is the work of the lynch mob. Mocking and ridicule are nothing ore than mob rule.

More and more atheists advocate ridicule as a valid approach. That's nothing more than an excuse to stifle thinking among ignorant people.

planet atheism oct 21 2010

Why Criticism and Mockery are Important

Yesterday I talked about the perception that criticism and mockery is often considered going negative. Today I want to talk about the value of criticism and mockery. Quite simply, it is how we learn.
When presented with an idea (good or bad) we have to think about the idea. Sometimes we don’t do that or we don’t think deeply enough about the idea. This is where someone else comes along and points out why the idea is poor by criticizing the idea. Their criticism may or may not have merit, but at least now we can think about those criticisms.
Sometimes however, ideas become deeply held beliefs and regardless of how valid the criticism might be, we still reject that criticism and cling to the belief. We might even insist that the belief be taken seriously and believed by others on insufficient reasoning and/or evidence.
This is where mockery comes in. When people refuse to take our deeply held beliefs seriously, we might dig in deeper in trying to get people to take our beliefs seriously. The more people mock the belief, the more we are confronted with the criticisms of the belief and he more we must try to deal with those criticism if we still expect our beliefs to be taken seriously.
Mockery is withheld as a last form of criticism for those who refuse to have their ideas criticized. It is more dismissive of the idea and usually only comes in when the particular idea is really ridiculous and worth mockery. It is a message that, “hey, your idea has way too many criticisms and is just so ridiculous that is really isn’t worth taking seriously at all.”

The problem is, you can't allow that becuase people have a hard time distinguishing a truly absurd idea from something they don' know about. Atheists don't' want to learn about theology anyway. There will be times when one can't help but mock something, to actually employ it as a strategy even a last resort is just creating an environment of hatred and negativity.

Ridicule becomes a form of atheist brain washing. Daylight Atheism argues that it's a valid and effective means of changing people's attitudes. They don't seem to concerned with the ramifications the effectiveness of it seems more important to them. In fact this guy tells how his own conversion include being ridiculed out of his beliefs.


This was around my last year of high school. I was surfing Internet chat rooms when I saw someone in one of them give an offhand reference to the site Things Creationists Hate by Bob Riggins, a sarcastic list of things that contradict creationist belief - everything from sand piles to the apostle Paul.
I read the whole page the first time I saw it, and I was hooked. I went back several times in the following weeks, reading new things as the author added them, and then branched out into exploring other websites, including some with a snarky and irreverent attitude towards religion (there was one I remember called Fade to Black, now defunct). I wasn't yet an atheist at that point, but it got me to realize that claims made in the name of religion could be questioned, even mocked - and that was what set the stage for my subsequent deconversion.
I bring this all up because, yet again, there's an ongoing tiff with an accommodationist - in this case the astronomy blogger Phil Plait - who's chastising the skeptical and atheist community for being excessively vitriolic and insulting:
"How many of you here today used to believe in something - used to, past tense - whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that... [and] no longer believe in those things and became a skeptic because somebody got in your face, screaming, and called you an idiot, brain-damaged and a retard?"
It's hard to disagree with the point as he phrases it, but the problem is this: Plait never said who, specifically, he was talking about. In fact, he made it a point not to cite any specific examples. This makes it very difficult to evaluate the merit of his argument, and raises the suspicion that he's just throwing up an inflammatory straw man. I don't know very many skeptics whose approach consists of getting in people's faces and screaming insults at them. But I do know many skeptics who mercilessly mock ridiculous beliefs, who argue using snark and sarcasm, and who forthrightly call irrational nonsense what it is. Is Plait talking about them? Is he talking about me? Where, specifically, does he think the line is? His argument isn't helpful if it doesn't answer these questions.

What they are really describing here is actually the Atheist Brain washing process. A bunch of thugs pick out weak lonely people who need friends and support, mock them and ridicule them make them feel like shit then give them a sense of belonging when they give in. This is as anti-intellectual as you can get. It's nothing more than thugs forcing people to change their minds. I put it on a par with torture. Its' a very tame for of torture. Ridicule can cause people to commit suicide. Ridicule can scar one for life. These people are thugs and there basically just admitting to be psychological kidnappers.

one comment on Daylgiht Athest says:

Thomas Paine obviously disagreed with Plait and his writings certainly utilize ridicule (a lot):
"The hinting and intimidating manner of writing that was formerly used on subjects of this kind [religion], produced skepticism, but not conviction. It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." (from a letter to Elihu Palmer)
Comment #1 by: EvanT | August 30, 2010, 6:34 am

Thomas Paine (ass though he was) did not just ridicule everything. He reserved his ridicule for his oppoents policies in politics, he didn't' try to ridicule all of philosophy, all of theology, all of literature, as many many atheists do.

Not all atheists agree of cousre. There are dissenting voices that council not to mock and ridicule. Paul Kurtz of the Free Thinking Blog (Center for Inquiry part of the atheist propaganda echo chamber) has some intelligent things to say about it.

It is one thing to examine the claims of religion in a responsible way by calling attention to Biblical, Koranic or scientific criticisms, it is quite another to violate the key humanistic principle of tolerance. One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society. I apologize to my fellow citizens who have suffered these barbs of indignity.
His readers disagree:


Randy on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 4:10pm

Two problems I have with this post:
(1) Nazi reference, already in the second paragraph. Really, do we need to go there every time?
(2) “What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?” I nearly fell off my chair. This happens on a daily basis, in all media, and usually is not meant as a lighthearted joke either.
The old "they do it to us so we can do it to them." I never hear atheists ridiculed in the media. I think he's confusing general sense of disagreement and cultural unacceptability with actual ridicule.

wandering on Tuesday September 29, 2009 at 5:19pm

It is not dissimilar to the anti-semitic cartoons of the Nazi era.
There is a great difference between denigrating a living person, or an existing nation and a mythical god/leader of religion. A person has rights; God, Jesus and Mohammed have no rights.
What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way?
How is drawing Jesus an insult to anyone that is not Jesus, and the drawing of the pope, an insult to anyone that is not the pope? People have no rights to be insulted on the behalf of a third party, just because they believe something about that party…

Those are thoughtless and stupid comments because Jesus and Mohamed are not just abstract ideas. To a lot of people they are cherished beliefs, and more, they are friends, they are people some people love. when you ridicule Jesus you are hurting me. It hurts me deeply and offends me deeply to see Jesus ridiculed. I equate Jesus with the basic symbol of all that is good and holy. To mock and ridicule that is totally evil. It requires only a modicum of brains to understand the ability to distinguish between the cultural construct of Jesus the icon of the good and the religious doctrine that the man of Nazareth was incorante logos. Not that mocking the logos would not also be offensive to me, but respecting Jesus as a cultural icon does not mean accepting the doctrine of the Trinity.

We can see clearly that atheism flourishes on mocking and ridiculing. it's my theory that they equate that with their intellectual superiority. As the studies indicate atheists have poor self esteem, they feel anger and frustration toward people who feel loved by God. They love the sense that they superior to these people because they can mock and ridicule what they don't understand. They use it as a tool to hijack people's brains and force them to give up their beliefs. They probably have to find boarder line people to work that on. Those are have low self esteem, struggle to feel accepted by God, have no support group need a sense of belonging. Being mocked and rejected creates the desire to be accepted by their persecutes and then the sense that one has finally ache-ivied belonging when one renounces the hated beliefs is enough to bring people into submission. Free thinkers, O yea, they are free thinkers. Free thinkers really bleieve in forcing people into submission don't they?





another one
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/08/on-the-uses-of-ridicule.html



here an atheist takes a dissenting view

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/a_disssenting_view_about_blashphemy_day/Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Atheist vengence: once you expose their treachery look out!

Photobucket


The emotionally backward individual who sent the hate mail last time has put up a thing of lies about me on his blog. he sent me hate mail, make absurd ridiculous statements calculated to do nothing more than hurt my feelings (as though i give a damn what this moron thinks). I exposed it showing everyone so the readership can draw conclusions themselves by seeing that can't take the responsibility for his own action,.

This is has so angered him that he put up this long insult thing. This is really stupid. the mina thing is dumb ass hate mail accomplished was to give me some material for the hate group theme on atheism. Now him is so angry like a good little emotionally stunted person that he does it some more only in a more grandiose way, thus demonstrating that he can't tell the difference in calling him on his actions and actually picking a fight with him.

here is a guy who obviously can't reason very well and doesn't understand personal responsibility.

He makes some comments about carm. Here's where he starts talking about me:


One of the most active of these trolls goes by the name of Metacrock. Metacrock is a morbidly obese man-boy who was banned from DebatingChristianity.com years ago for his bad behavior. He has found a home at CARM where name-calling and belittling non-believers is encouraged.
He's assuming I look the way I did in the photo which was taken in 1999. I had also lost 50 lbs when it was taken and others have said you can't tell form the photo how fat I look. He's just assuming. He's been reading about me on the net and is using a lot of old bagged to find ways to hurt me. why? because I made evil horrible mistake of getting him banned. that's right I made him get banned by reporting his slandering me.He's the big big man he don't let no body push him around and little things like being wrong aren't gonna stop him.

Debating Christianity was an atheist site, therefore specified in mocking and ridicule. So I was banned for fighting back and defending myself, of course. I have shown that atheist use mockery to force weak young people who are not committed but on the fence to give up their faith in order rto prevent begin bulled. This guy is one of the harassers. In just society he would be in jail for what he's doing. In a premisive society he's allowed to hurt people all the time and I sure does all the time.


Metacrock spends most of his time bragging about his fake education from a Christian school and insisting no one but him has ever been to college. His arguments are nothing more than, “you are stupid, I went to seminary.”

Fake education notice that the jackass links Loftus sight. He hasn't had the courage to actually ask John about me. John knows my education is real. he will tell the little misfit if head the guts to ask, he doesn't have the guts does he? If he did he would know. He still refers to it as fake even though I told him to check with Loftus and he's too cowardly to do it. The very quotation he links demonstrates not only friendship bewteen Loftus and I but also that Loftus doesn't regard my education as false. This idiot actually links to that to supposedly prove my education is fake.

Of cousre the lying emotional retard-ate says that I claim only I have been to college. that's obviously not the case.


Beyond this, Metacrock is either horribly dyslexic and/or a terrible speller.

ahahaha what a moron! can anyone really be that stupid? First of all, he's totally obvious to the fact that those are the same thing. If you are a bad spelling the odds are extremely high that you are dyslexic, which of cousre he doesn't know dyslexia form a hole in the ground. Not only is that tautology but can't he tell that I'm a bad speller just by looking? I'm sure the little miscreant regards dyslexia as something like retardation. He probalby thinks spelling is a sign of intelligent. most really stupid people do think that. As a matter of fact dyslexics do tend to have IQ's well above average. I was diagnosed as dyslexic and given treatment for it as a child back in the 1960s by Luke Weights the guy who discovered it and devolved the therapy at Scottish Rite Children Hospital.

It doesn't surprise me that this little lame brain is such a bigot he mocks and ridicules people with challenges. He did it on carm to in his other guise, not the grand wizard, the one on CARM


Half his statements are illegible and ramble on for paragraphs without ever coming to a clear point. The more upset he gets the worse his grammar. Because of his insecurity, based on his looks and troubled childhood, he starts overheating when anyone dares question anything he says, no matter how stupid or unsupported. His poor research is typical within Christian apologetics.

such a telling defect to get upset and become more dyslexia. I really gotta watch that. Of cousre he doesn't' bother to mention the reason I'm up set is because I usually 30 little misfit know nothing talking about evil and stupid I am and saying really stupid things, like you know, case in point here.



Here are typical examples of his posts:

"O sy professor, religious people are afraid to admit they aer agonized. religious peopel don't though hissy fits when one suggests they are organized."

"you are really ignorant and not very bright."

"Knock it off junior. it's gone on way too long to try that little ploy! hundreds of post since 2007.
don't you dare question that coward. can't stand up and face your opponent like a man. you play little girlie games."

Kind of makes a difference not knowing the context does it? Leave to lame brain not to think about that. Are these things 30 years apart? are they in the last five minutes? Where they in response to 30 knowing nothing mocking and ridiculing calling me names? He doesn't know he doesn't care. How can the context matter, I'm a Christian I have to be stupid. Do you really believe for a minute that if I was an atheist he would going to all this trouble?



"you know that's not true. you know what they are calling insults are things like "you don't have any studies." that's a big insult even though it 's true and not a real insult.
you are insulting, most atheist are. the majority of them are. You use that as a tool for character assassination. claiming that I'm always insulting is just part destroying the reputation. you could just as easily understanding it as defending myself if you wanted to.
Always talking about how bad I am is ad hom. you keep that going becasue that's your true purpose. Not reason, not ideas, not discussion, but emotionally huring Christians to feel like a big shot.t hat's your real game"

You get the idea.

I sure do. atheists really suck. T hey are such bastard they drive you to anger.

He seems to be mental disturbed.
ahahahahahah "he seems to be mental distured." O the expert on writing has a misatke. Maybe he's dyslexic?s Or just a bad grammar maker.

His constant bragging about his unimpressive education is a sad attempt to convince himself that he is worth the love that was refused to him by his mother.

Of course since he hasn't provided a context there's no establishment of the idea that I barg. H says I am but he doesn't document that. Then the Grand Wizard says my mother didn't love me. Like he really has some idea about it. this guy know 0 about my mother or me. He has 0 change of getting me to doubt my mother's love.

don't' you think it kind of says something about this guy as a person? If anyone out there can quote to me anything I've said (other than a remark I made to Hermit years ago and have apologized for several times) that's even close to being an a par with that kind of evil sick stupidity I will apologize profusely to all atheist.

this little retardant guy is putting my reporting his slandering me that got him banned,(his actions) on a par with him slandering my mother who died of Alzheimer as I took care of her and gave up my carer and basically ended my chance of any kind of life forever just to give me a few good years at the end. He thinks that's fair. What kind of seriousness self conceited little pig bigot pace of shit would think that way?

Is he really so far below the mark of rational healthy minded humanity that he can't see the distinction? I criticize people for not knowing what they criticize. I say things like You have not read that you don't have a right to critixize it. he says stuff like "your mother didn't love you" even though he has no idea who she was or what she was like.

O ye's a made a powerful statement for atheism here. I really want to consider the truth claims of group that has him for a member.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

An Example of the Maturity of the Dawkies (Atheist fundies)

Photobucket


Recently I had a little tiff with an athist on CARM. Back several months ago he got into a tizzy because I pointed out how little he knew about the things he was pontificating upon. He tried to get even with me by finding a page I wrote on another site, takings it out of context and putting it on carm to "show how stupid I am." That's totally against the board rules. So the dumb ass expects me to just offer myself as an exaple of what he thinks si stupid and not do anything about being slandered. What kind f idiot would think that way?Since that time he takes every opportunity to say "you bot me banned." He had nothing to do with it. I just, being the old meanie am emailed Di and said "ban this guy" for no reason. Like he played no role in his choice to slander me. "You got me banned." He has a four year old's understanding of personal responsibility. He pulled this whining ruitine again yesterday and I said pretty much what I just said. By mid day there was a post on my other blog:


The Birmingham Free Press said...

You are a morbidly obese man-boy. And you are genuinely stupid. Why don't you wash your hair?

You are obviously mentally ill. Why do you have to keep bragging about your shitty education from a Christian school? You know that's not normal, right? They obviously didn't teach you how to do research. Did our mother not love you? Why do you have to keep propping yourself up? That is an obvious sign of insecurity.

What you need is to finally know the company of a woman. I'm sure if you find a nice prostitute you can finally lose your virginity. It might clear your skin up. Then maybe you can think about moving out of your parents basement.


I find this displace of childish name calling rather amusing, and I had a good idea of who did it. There was another incident of his making comments on the blog in which he made it clear who he was. I don't know for sure so I wont name the individual but I find it interesting. I went to carm and refered to this guy as "Bringham." then the second comment appeared.


The Birmingham Free Press said...

Ha ha morbidly obese man boy is confused. Your research skills are horrible.

But I already knew that.

Maybe I'm from Satan.

Did you ever think of that?

Better watch you back.

Regardless of who did it, connected to this guy with the childish sense of his own responsibility or not, it's a priceless example of atheist group atheism at work. The big irnoy is it's all in the middle of a flap on CARM where Mat Hunt got wind of my quoting him below so they are trying to argue that because I referred to him as "pretender" then I'm slandering him (saying he doesn't have a degree). I have stated on this blog and on the other blog that I don't doubt his degree.

I do find it telling that the atheists on CARM work up a huge pile of acrimony over my implying that their resident scientist doesn't have a degree, while the past several years (2007 on) they have continually slandered me calling me a liar for saying I went to graduate school. Hunt put up his Masters thesis and said "here it is." He also put up some other document. I don't doubt that he has it, I just doubt that he's conducting himself as a man of letter becasue he wont discuss issues with me.

Yet I have done must as much to prove my doctoral work. I put up the phone number of the department secretary. I implored John Lofuts (punished atheist author) to call her and learn the truth, which he did. I made his email available to them. They will not contact either person to see that I really am a graduate student. they continue their slander and their lies that I'm not.

The old double standard. They do it to you the are perfectly justified and no amount of evidence can disprove their lies. You do it to them you are evil, and the worst scum of the earth and there's no justification for your treachery. In the middle of all of this we have this extremely childish and exaggerated hate mail where this guy is revealing his extreme immaturity. A perfect example of a hate group member in action.

BTW not that give a you know what about thta mental cripple's opinions but my Ph.D. work was in a secular program at a branch of the University of Texas (hook em horns) and SMU, where I got my MASTERS DEGREE, is a fine school.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Atheist Organizations Exist

Photobucket
atheism is not organized, just merchandised

I have demonstrated an organized movement to persuade people against religion. some atheists throng to counter the idea have gone so far as to claim there are no atheist organizations at all. There's a huge list of them. These are innocent groups that exist to argue that morality is not objective or something like that, to support humanism. You wont find Thrush on this list. The point is there is a lot of organizing among atheists. Much of it has an effect on producing an agenda that breeds a form of fundamentalism.

Just to prove that atheist organizations do exist:


International

[edit] Australia

[edit] Brazil

[edit] Canada

[edit] Croatia

[edit] Germany

[edit] Iceland

[edit] India

[edit] Ireland

[edit] Italy

[edit] New Zealand

[edit] Norway

[edit] Singapore

  • Humanist Society (Singapore)

[edit] Sweden

[edit] Turkey

[edit] United Kingdom

[edit] United States

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Secularism". Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 1989.
  2. ^ The Secular Coalition for America, which has been identified by Brights.net as representing the interests of "secularist organizations", describes its constituency as "nontheistic Americans", including those who go by the labels "atheist, humanist, freethinker, agnostic, skeptic, bright, ignostic, materialist, and naturalist, among others." Who does the Secular Coalition for America represent? at the Secular Coalition for America website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  3. ^ Some less common secularist labels include: apatheist, godless (in the non-pejorative, literal sense), ignostic, infidel (or unbeliever), heathen, materialist, or realist.
  4. ^ Atheist Alliance International website, 2008 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
  5. ^ The Movement, The Brights' Network, 2008 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
  6. ^ Presentation, European Humanist Federation website, 2006 (Accessed 10 April 2008)
  7. ^ Laïque (French): "secular"
  8. ^ About IHEU, IHEU website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  9. ^ The Norwegian Humanist Association, Human-Etisk Forbund website (English version), 2011 (Accessed 5 February 2011)
  10. ^ Membership, Human-Etisk Forbund website (English version), 2004 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
  11. ^ Leicester Secular Society website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  12. ^ South Place Ethical Society website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  13. ^ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the American Humanist Association, American Humanist Association website, 2005 (Accessed 8 April 2005)
  14. ^ Atheist Community of Austin website, 2009 (Accessed 16 August 2009)
  15. ^ "Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view." Camp Quest website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
  16. ^ http://fellowshipoffreethought.org/
  17. ^ Find Us, SDNA, 2010

[edit] External links