Friday, December 28, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Love and Meaning
Love comes forth as the previous article claims. We rationalists find that human love requires no divine love to supplement it, contrary to the source of the article.
Love to exist more exuberantly! Love expresses itself in helping others.
Love dissipates strife.Love encourages. Love is the bind for our being together even when alone
Love expresses itself in hope.
Love opposes evils. Love opposes pacifism. Love does not honor wrong-doers with doubling the wrong-doers robbery.
Love honors no Hell. Love despises those beings who would make any.
Love worships no Gods. Love honors good people.
We make our own meanings. To claim that some God can give us meaning amounts to claiming that we are mere things! What a travesty of humanity!
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Reality suffices!
- We need no Deity for that more abundant life.Our own purposes and human love and this one life suffice. Divine purpose and divine love and the future state lead nowhere. When people feel that He helps them when they help themselves, they are merely using faith in Him to inspire themselves to use their own inner resources. Therefore, people should rely on real sources of inspiration to get themselves to use those inner resources, and in fact, people could just use them without any external inspiration.
- Prayer when supposedly answered merely reflects post hoc- coincidences, whilst people rationalize about unanswered prayer. Researchers find no evidence that prayer works.
- Deity makes no miracles.Why would He help people find keys when He fails to overcome the Holocausts. Why would He allow Marian apparitions with inane remarks at times when such makes no rewards for knowledge?
- What gift to knowledge comes forth to allege that He is the overall explanation when God did it is so vacuous? How could He as that personal explanation work in the Cosmos anyway? Until theists can offer some explanation, that offers nothing.
- Aquinas' own superfluity argument keel hauls all arguments for Him. Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly explains thus:" To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions -laws - of Nature,M.L.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." The theists would beg the question to allege that why, that's a category mistake.
- Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham argument notes that either He is vacuous as a square circle or He is a useless redundancy,despite Alister Earl McGrath.
- The Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism maintains that natural causes and explanations themselves are the primary cause and sufficient reason. Naturalists demand evidence to overthrow this presumption.
- Lamberth's teleonomic argument notes that as science finds no divine intent, then without that intent ,He cannot have referents as Creator and so forth and thus cannot exist as the ignostic argument shows. To maintain,however, He does have intent but chooses to hide it ambiguously as the late John Hick maintained with his epistemic distance argument, but no, as that makes for Lamberth's new Omphalos argument that He deceives us thereby as Phillip Gosse's old one states that He deceives us with apparent ancient age for things to suggest evolution.
- Theists see intent and design as Lamberth's argument from pareidolia notes instead of mechanism and patterns just as people see Yeshua on a tortilla or the man in the Moon.
- That pareidolia makes for superstition as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes that indeed theism is just reduced animism and thus as superstitious as full animism or polytheism. All animism depends on invalid intent.
- People murder others for that superfluity and superstition!
- All that makes me a gnu atheist. Apologetics, and the horrors should make any a gnu!
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
WLC
William Lane Craig is an unmitigated disaster!
The previous article details his lies.
He credulously accepts as true the uncorroborated statements of the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament. He revels in proclaiming "facts' that prove the Resurrection but no, manifest the woo and -the barbarism of the writers of the Gospels. Those supposed facts ring no more true than those about Muhammad' ascension on that horse or his splitting the Moon.
He not only accepts the genocide as moral but also the Deluge and - Hell as moral. His morality then is no more than might makes right, hardly an objective one but instead an egregious simple subjectivism, whilst the simple one of Lord Russell is quite good. I favor the wide-reflective subjectivism, which I find underpins objective morality!
So, he hardly can find his morality superior to that of humanism.
He whines that minus Deity, we are forlorn, but why whine when reality favors humanism as making for the more abundant and happy life.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn [ me]
Eternity cannot further validate any life,because life has value for us no matter how long it lasts. That evils happen cannot gainsay that but can instead gainsay Deity. What I post will pass away but it validates itself for all who read it. The Founding Fathers would have validated their lives even had they failed.
All the good will still be good when the Universe passes away. What intransigent whining about its end to humanity! Instead of whining,people should study Robert Price's " The Reason-Driven Life" and Albert Ellis' " The Myth of Self-Esteem," books that challenge in effect that very whining.
WLC's Kalam argument fails as it assumes a starting point. He uses the red herrings of the hotel and the library, which don't portray the impossibility of infinity as he conflates finite and infinite mathematics. The potential infinity is the actual one in that one never arrives at infinite end point as that would contradict infinity: so adding makes for infinity!
His sophistry here is so apparent.
Also, he finds the Big Transformation- the Big Bang- as the origination of everything when it was just a transformation of the quantum fields!
His personal explanation fails, just another argument from ignorance as saying that why, as the world is had to be a personal decision or otherwise, things would have turned out differently. No, no choice involves itself but necessity as Leucippus teaches. Actually, he thereby proclaims the reduced animism that theism is as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes. No divine intent manifests itself no more than the intent of spirits of full animism or polytheism.
People so overrate him as a philosopher! Why, Ayn Rand ranks with him.
The previous article details his lies.
He credulously accepts as true the uncorroborated statements of the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament. He revels in proclaiming "facts' that prove the Resurrection but no, manifest the woo and -the barbarism of the writers of the Gospels. Those supposed facts ring no more true than those about Muhammad' ascension on that horse or his splitting the Moon.
He not only accepts the genocide as moral but also the Deluge and - Hell as moral. His morality then is no more than might makes right, hardly an objective one but instead an egregious simple subjectivism, whilst the simple one of Lord Russell is quite good. I favor the wide-reflective subjectivism, which I find underpins objective morality!
So, he hardly can find his morality superior to that of humanism.
He whines that minus Deity, we are forlorn, but why whine when reality favors humanism as making for the more abundant and happy life.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn [ me]
Eternity cannot further validate any life,because life has value for us no matter how long it lasts. That evils happen cannot gainsay that but can instead gainsay Deity. What I post will pass away but it validates itself for all who read it. The Founding Fathers would have validated their lives even had they failed.
All the good will still be good when the Universe passes away. What intransigent whining about its end to humanity! Instead of whining,people should study Robert Price's " The Reason-Driven Life" and Albert Ellis' " The Myth of Self-Esteem," books that challenge in effect that very whining.
WLC's Kalam argument fails as it assumes a starting point. He uses the red herrings of the hotel and the library, which don't portray the impossibility of infinity as he conflates finite and infinite mathematics. The potential infinity is the actual one in that one never arrives at infinite end point as that would contradict infinity: so adding makes for infinity!
His sophistry here is so apparent.
Also, he finds the Big Transformation- the Big Bang- as the origination of everything when it was just a transformation of the quantum fields!
His personal explanation fails, just another argument from ignorance as saying that why, as the world is had to be a personal decision or otherwise, things would have turned out differently. No, no choice involves itself but necessity as Leucippus teaches. Actually, he thereby proclaims the reduced animism that theism is as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes. No divine intent manifests itself no more than the intent of spirits of full animism or polytheism.
People so overrate him as a philosopher! Why, Ayn Rand ranks with him.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Aquinas vs. Aquinas- naturalists win!
Aquinas beats himself with his superfluity argument that we should never use Deity as the overall explanation. Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly expounds it thusly:" To suppose that some existence above, or beyond them [ the descripions-laws- of Nature] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounte for.' And, not ti's no category mistake, which only begs the question thereof.
People might as well pray to me! They'd receive the same responses,only I declare I have no powers to change matters- honesty! Realized prayers are only post hoc- coincidental, and unanswered ones receive the theist unknown defense argumenwt- one from ignorance by means of rationalizations!
To appeal to miracles as most theists do appeals actually to ignorance of reality. When skepticcs investigate miracles, they only find natural forces at work,not because of bias but due to lack of facts for divine intent there, and the facts illustrating what actually happens. Too bad, that the Vatican relies on its faith-based panels to find those non-existent miracles, which should decline with medical advances. Why such matters as finding keys instead of overcoming any holocause? Why the silly Marian apparitions instead of having only one set of scriptures that are truthful? No, Dranges' argument from non-beliefs supports the superfluity argument!
To define God as goodness delivers the same dilemmas as the original Euthyphro does: it the goodness independent of Him or can He change it. and ti's another begged question anyway!
Defining Him with omni-attributes, as cataphatic theology dies, without evidence for them justs makes Him vacuous such that why, He cannot possibly exist!And by non-dfining Him as not this ,not that just defines Him into vacuity again1 Both sides lose!
We know that Jews and others saved Jewry, so adding Him is extraneous as how could that ever be possible in light if the Holocaust?
Science suffices as the sufficient reason itself as it fits the facts whereas God rests on convoluted, ad hoc assumptions- His referents and attributes. And God did it as the Lamberth's God of the explanatory gap furthers explantion no better thn Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps.
To assuage any existential angst, despite the unsubstantiated Aquinas' argument from angst, people should seek therapy.
To prattle that why, without Him, we'e be so forlorn as then we'd have no purpose for living or doing right. What useless whining! Why would any rational person depend on that non-sequtur that,because no Deity gives us purpose, we then have no purposes. What an application of the all or nothing fallacy? We are our own purpose and we make others.
Ti's then to deny humanity any dignity at all: it betrays us as His pottery when morality dictates that we owe Him nothing and He has no rights over us!That brands us as mere things!
Theism in this matter inverts the truth when it laments that naturalism does that! Hardly.
Naturalism regards us as part of Nature but we do the ultimate valuing in ascribing great worth to ourselves. We don't, despite theistic insistence, become gods,taking matters egoistically into our own hands. That again betrays humanity!
To invoke Him as providing order and regularity and such merely cannot gainsay the superfluity as Lamberth's argument from inherency claims that order, chaos, regularity and the descrioptions -laws- of Nature inhere in the Cosmos.
Why, then the attempt ot overide the superfluity? Why, ti's the animist superstition. Lamberth's reduced animism argues that theism is just reduced animism and thus relies on none evidenced supernatural intent.
How then can we not find intent? Ccience as the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument argues that why,science finds no divine intent, and thus Deity does not intervene in natural processes and thus is not Himself and thus cannot exist! Why, His attributes involving intent thus cannot exist, thus He cannot be the Creator and so forth and again He cannot exist.
How do theists find intent then? Per Lamberth's argument from pareidolia, theists discern intent and design when only causalism- mechanism- teleonomy exist just as people see those Marian apparitions or Yeshua on a tortilla.
Thus for lack of intent also supports the superfluity as do the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism and Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham.
People die from faith-healing and exorcism, and people murder due to that superfulity! That no there there, That gargantuan superstiton!
The misinterpretations of evidence to support that superfluity alone should make one a gnu atheist but all the evils done in its name does gainsay all the good ,beause one can find that good elsewhere!
Instead of Him as the inspiration to get them to use their own inner resources, people can use inspiration from other sources; again, why ascribe power to that superfluity by denying ones own powers as the actual power involves, other than help from others?
Definition without evidence, faith and postulation cannot instantiate Him- that square circle or married bachelor!
And what then do you claim?
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Errantists and inerrantists err against humanity!
The theocons have just suffered major set-back in the election. Voters have rejected two of those fools, voted in favor of marriage equality and said no to constitutional change for inequality thereof.
They can console themselves by whining that why, it not the politics, stupid, but instead individual moral change. No, even to that, because their morality is immoral!
None of them want to apply the biblical law even though their Shepherd told them not to change it at all, other than his own implied changes.Neither errantists nor inerrantists can point to any need for those evil passages. What good metaphors can the former find ? What far-fetched rationalizations do the latter use?
Haughty John Haught with temerity states, why, ti's not morality but hope that endures throughout all Scriptures, glossing over the horrors. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan defend the commands for genocide. No , might does not make right! And no being has the right ever to demand such horror!
Both sides err with their defenses of that anthology of hate!
And no need exists for that blood sacrifice for expiation and salvation!
The divine protection racket reverberates across the ages as misanthropy! Petty-minded, preachers of perversity still ever try to get others to subscribe to that racket, worse than the Mafia's,because it is eternal!
So, both errantists and inerrantists err against humanity?
What do you think?
They can console themselves by whining that why, it not the politics, stupid, but instead individual moral change. No, even to that, because their morality is immoral!
None of them want to apply the biblical law even though their Shepherd told them not to change it at all, other than his own implied changes.Neither errantists nor inerrantists can point to any need for those evil passages. What good metaphors can the former find ? What far-fetched rationalizations do the latter use?
Haughty John Haught with temerity states, why, ti's not morality but hope that endures throughout all Scriptures, glossing over the horrors. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan defend the commands for genocide. No , might does not make right! And no being has the right ever to demand such horror!
Both sides err with their defenses of that anthology of hate!
And no need exists for that blood sacrifice for expiation and salvation!
The divine protection racket reverberates across the ages as misanthropy! Petty-minded, preachers of perversity still ever try to get others to subscribe to that racket, worse than the Mafia's,because it is eternal!
So, both errantists and inerrantists err against humanity?
What do you think?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Fowl play!
We ought to do as Thomas Jefferson suggests, mock vigorously woo. Spinoza just wants us to understand others, without mocking them. We do need to understand purveyors of any kind of woo, religious, paranormal or political.
Non-fundamentalism-errancy- invites us to mock it with its trying to find good metaphors for the egregious passages in its texts. None exist for the Deluge and the commands for genocide as they reflects barbarism or is the metaphor one of might makes right? Bishop John Shelby Spong clings to Yeshua, even though he finds much of the Testament wrong-headed.He is wrong to be infatuated with that perverse fool,because Yeshua was just another cult leader, with an ethic no better than any other.
Ti's fowl play to engage in treating that Testament and Yeshua as having any kind of moral demand; it's to gloss over Yeshu'a love of Hell and his silly and dangerous advice.
Faitheists declaim that we rationalists should honor both, but no, duty demands that we mock and instantiate that both exhume travesty of humanity!
All the good derived from theism cannot overcome its fatuity and egregious failings; we can derive the good elsewhere.
B. and I. would be gnu atheists: they rightly perceived the deletorious effects of theism= reduced animism!
They would deride the evil in the name of that superfluity called God!
Love would not hide itself when Holocausts and priest-molesters abound! John Hick's hiddeness argument derives from a sincere rationalization to hold onto that superstition in the name of humanity, but that superfluity keeps people enthralled to woo and sometimes pain.
Just as Bradlaugh and Ingersoll rail against the lack of evidence for that superfluity and its evil effects, we gnu atheists have the duty and the right to do so today to do the same/
Why would a rational person fight against theism,any animism? We do as educators arguing against any woo and just as law enforcement acts against criminals.
We participate in the public square just as liberals did in fighting segregation when segregationists blasted us for going against just public policy.
And Jefferson is right in calling upon us to fight the eternal viglilance!
So, errantists, faitheists and others, call off your irresponsible attacks upon us! You are the ones harmng public discourse with your blandishments against our justified criticisms!
Non-fundamentalism-errancy- invites us to mock it with its trying to find good metaphors for the egregious passages in its texts. None exist for the Deluge and the commands for genocide as they reflects barbarism or is the metaphor one of might makes right? Bishop John Shelby Spong clings to Yeshua, even though he finds much of the Testament wrong-headed.He is wrong to be infatuated with that perverse fool,because Yeshua was just another cult leader, with an ethic no better than any other.
Ti's fowl play to engage in treating that Testament and Yeshua as having any kind of moral demand; it's to gloss over Yeshu'a love of Hell and his silly and dangerous advice.
Faitheists declaim that we rationalists should honor both, but no, duty demands that we mock and instantiate that both exhume travesty of humanity!
All the good derived from theism cannot overcome its fatuity and egregious failings; we can derive the good elsewhere.
B. and I. would be gnu atheists: they rightly perceived the deletorious effects of theism= reduced animism!
They would deride the evil in the name of that superfluity called God!
Love would not hide itself when Holocausts and priest-molesters abound! John Hick's hiddeness argument derives from a sincere rationalization to hold onto that superstition in the name of humanity, but that superfluity keeps people enthralled to woo and sometimes pain.
Just as Bradlaugh and Ingersoll rail against the lack of evidence for that superfluity and its evil effects, we gnu atheists have the duty and the right to do so today to do the same/
Why would a rational person fight against theism,any animism? We do as educators arguing against any woo and just as law enforcement acts against criminals.
We participate in the public square just as liberals did in fighting segregation when segregationists blasted us for going against just public policy.
And Jefferson is right in calling upon us to fight the eternal viglilance!
So, errantists, faitheists and others, call off your irresponsible attacks upon us! You are the ones harmng public discourse with your blandishments against our justified criticisms!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Bradlaugh & Ingersoll
Both men fought for human liberty and freedom of conscience and against the superstition of the supernatural. Charles Bradlaugh fought in England, finally becoming an M.P. Col. Robert Green Ingersoll was a great Republican,fighting for human rights and for agnosticism, unlike the theo-con-jobservatives of today.
The irony now is that Bradlaugh's nation has less ecclesiastical influence than than we have here. The the established church is losing members, few attend services. Here, more people are becoming nones, whether of no denomination or non-theists. Yet, the theocrats still intrude way to much.
This blog is to gainsay the theocrats and their apologetics and any theological nonsense.
Shine here with posts to my or to others' articles reblogged herE, please.
The irony now is that Bradlaugh's nation has less ecclesiastical influence than than we have here. The the established church is losing members, few attend services. Here, more people are becoming nones, whether of no denomination or non-theists. Yet, the theocrats still intrude way to much.
This blog is to gainsay the theocrats and their apologetics and any theological nonsense.
Shine here with posts to my or to others' articles reblogged herE, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)