Starbucks should realize that in the theocratic state of America, provoking thought aint the way to go. You can only get in trouble. A couple of years ago the Christians were pissed at The Way I See It #43 which seemed to tell gays that they should come out.
A Catholic woman got pissed off because she got the following message on her Starbuck's coffee coffee cup:
"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."
'The quote was written by Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, Canada, and was included as part of an effort by the Seattle-based coffee giant to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.' The series is called The Way I See It.
OK, I can see why the figment of our imaginations line was offensive, but the message was indeed something to talk about, especially amongst theists. I would even argue that many catastrophes are not man made. But that is the idea of these cups. To argue, debate, and discuss.
Here is another coffee cup in the Starbucks collection:
"Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty."
-- Dr. Jonathan Wells
Biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Anyone want to discuss what this retard Jonathan Wells says? I'll start. Darwinism is a fact. Blaming Darwin for eugenics, abortion and racism is like blaming Newton for the way bullets travel.
RE: "Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty."
ReplyDeleteThis question is for people who are suspicious of knowledge. What they should be suspicious of is not knowledge, but how people choose to use knowledge.
It's the 21st century, beaj.
ReplyDeleteScience for the sake of science is no longer good enough if its outcome raises socially unacceptable facts.
That's why our universities are hotbeds of lib-left moronism and politically correct BS.
On the other hand, I can't stand the Starbucks "the way I see it" cups. I shop there often because the owners of the company are strong supporters of Israel but I find most of the quotes on those cups to be juvenile at best and idiotic a lot of the time.
The Origins Of Atheism
ReplyDeleteDo you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists - particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetuators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.
The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin - that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time. Atheism is not a manmade doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists. It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for the absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.
The process by which atheism originated was much more involved than can be explained here, so a simple presentation of the basic principles that gave it birth must suffice. I will endeavor to explain how atheism had its origin by first directing your attention to a principle in the Bible found in Romans Chapter 9, verse 14. The Holy Spirit who spoke through the pen of the Apostle Paul, drew a conclusion from what is presented in the previous verses. In the entire chapter, He teaches that God is sovereign over the salvation and reprobation of humans - that God does not love everybody - that He decreed that some should be the objects of His eternal love and the rest should be the objects of His eternal wrath - that God, from His own will, has mercy on some humans while He hardens the rest. He has done this apart from anything they do good or bad. He teaches that humans are not truly masters of their destinies, but God is - that the details of their lives and destinies were foreordained by God in eternity past - before He brought any of them into existence. Then He asked the question: “…There is no injustice with God, is there?” We are then very emphatically given the divine answer: “May it never be!”
The Holy Spirit implies from the question that graceless humans who are informed about the truths of God’s sovereignty over the salvation and reprobation of humans will falsely conclude that God is unjust for loving some and hating the others - for decreeing that those He love should spend eternity in heaven and decreeing those He hates to spend eternity in the lake of fire, both apart fom anything they do good or bad in this world. A false conclusion that God is unjust for His actions is what began the birth process of atheism. It is very important to keep that fact in mind.
A conclusion that the Almighty Righteous God is unjust or wrong for any of His actions cannot be arrived at except through the total depravity of those who draw such a conclusion. So in order to understand how atheism had it origin, It is crucial to realize that the total depravity of the nature of satan is the key principle that underlies the origin of atheism. The total depravity of both the human and demonic natures is really none other than an antithetical principle or law to God and His Law. If you liken God and His righteousness to light and the total depravity of humans and demons to darkness, you can understand the antithetical nature of the two to one another. Light and darkness can never coexist; the one always dispels the other. Thus, the two are ANTI to one another. When the one expresses itself in the presence of the other, the other repels and cannot agree with the other, regardless of the expression. Atheism had its origin through the practical mental reaction of satan’s depravity towards God’s actions. The response of satan’s depravity was the false conclusion that the actions of God are wrong or evil.
Even though the conclusion that God is unjust is high error and was known by satan to be so, his total depravity nevertheless made it impossible for him to conclude otherwise. Depravity must direct the hearts of its graceless subjects against God even though they know better. This is because of the very antithetical nature of depravity to God and His Law. The nature of both human and demonic depravity is an unvarying and uncompromising principle that works apart from what its subjects know and remains opposed to God at all times despite God’s actions and despite their knowledge that it is impossible for God to be wrong.
The negative expressions of God towards the existence and outworkings of the depraved natures of humans and demons is always right, whereas the negative expressions and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons towards God are always wrong. The very antithetical nature of the depravity of graceless humans and demons invariably enslaves them to react negatively to God regardless of what God does. Therefore, their depravity reacts negatively to God, despite the fact that God can never do evil and despite the fact that He is always perfectly innocent. Here lies also the origin of insanity.
In order for satan to have arrived at the false conclusion that God is unjust in the midst of full knowledge that it is impossible for God to be so, his depravity had to cause him in principle to haughtily and deceptively seek to raise himself above God in order to judge God’s actions. It was a haughty attempt of a measly, totally depraved creature to reduce the Almighty God to the level of a creature and to raise himself to the position of God in order to subject God’s actions to his own judgement. It is impossible for the Almighty God to be debased to the level of a measly, depraved creature; and it is just as impossible for a measly, totally depraved creature to be exhalted to the level of the Almighty God. Satan understood this very well. However, his depravity nevertheless made him endeavor to assume such a deceptive role.
In order for satan to have endeavored to judge God, there had to be in place some type of opinion, philosophy, religion, charter or law by which he used to try to judge God. But God is not subject to anything. Nothing exists whatsoever that God is subject to or responsible to obey. God is not subject even to the most noble law in the universe - the TEN COMMANDMENTS - which He made for mankind, nor to any law made for the angels. He is above all laws and does only His own will. So there is no law He can possibly violate by any of His actions. Therefore, He cannot be rightly judged to be wrong in any action He performs. The only choices satan had by which to seek to judge God were some form of his own depravity - the antithetical principle of evil - the law of sin, or the most noble Law in the universe - the TEN COMMANDMENTS. Either choice would be the evil one attempting to judge the Righteous One - evil trying to condemn the rightousness as being evil - an impossibility and absolute deception. But he probably chose the latter so as to make God deceptively appear wrong by His own Law. Again, an impossibility and absolute deception.
Once satan deceptively drew the conclusion that God is wrong, the inference created within him a deep, abiding but unjust hatred and wrath for God. The ultimate end of all hatred is the death or complete destruction of the object of hatred. The hatred that satan had for God was not satisfied with merely seeking to punish God. It was satisfied with nothing less than God’s annihilation.
But satan’s foolish wrath created huge dilemmas for him. Although he wrongly concluded that God is unjust and wanted God annihilated as a result, he also clearly understood that it is impossible for God to be subject to his or anyone’s feelings, opinions, religions, philosophies, charters or laws, or any law God has made. But he was nevertheless forced by his depravity to make a condemning judgement against God which sought God’s annihilation. (A condemning judgement against God in the midst of the absence of a law that can condemn Him is insane hatred pure and simple.) But then he was faced with his knowledge that it is impossible for God to be destroyed by anyone, any means or anything. But his depravity and insane hatred for God insisted that God be annihilated! The dilemmas only served to inflame his foolish wrath. So after ranting and raving to no effect, the only way possible for him to gain some satisfaction from his rage and a semblance of the destruction of God in the midst of his understanding that God cannot be annihilated was through deception. He had to begin to deny the existence of God in full knowledge of His existence. This was the actual deceptive and utterly foolish birth of atheism.
The birth of atheism deceptively made satan feel free from his responsibility to obey and worship God, even though he also knew he wasn’t free. It made him deceptively feel he had the freedom to think and speak whatever he wanted without the feeling that it was sin, even though he knew this was not so. It made him deceptively feel that there is no punishment from God awaiting him, even though he knows full well there is. With God supposedly out of the picture, satan could establish all of the various erroneous manmade and demonic philosophies, religions, opinions and etc. in the world and none of them would be wrong in the eyes of his atheism. Democracy could be established to give all these the right of existence. Hence the birth of demonic democracy.
Lets recount the demonic steps that led to the birth of atheism: First came the measly and totally depraved demon’s deceptive efforts to exhalt himself to the level of the Almighty God and his deceptive efforts to debase God to the level of a depraved creature. Second came his deceptive efforts to judge God’s actions by the demon’s own depravity or by the law God made for human or angels. Third came the demon’s deceived conclusion that God is unjust or wrong in what He does. Fourth came his deceptive effort to impose the sentence of annihilation upon God’s existence. And fifth came the deceptive denial of the existence of God as a substitute for an impossibe annihilation of God. As you can see, each step from beginning to end during the birth of atheism was pure deception on the part of one who knows the truth. This proves that atheism is pure deception.
You will find those five principles at work in the hearts of every atheist. The conclusion that the One and only True God doesn’t exist cannot be derived except through deception. Atheism didn’t receive its origin by a true absence of proof of God’s existence, because there has always been and always will be overwhelming proof to the contrary. Atheism had its origin by the expression of satan’s depravity towards God, and it is embraced, maintained and perpetuated among graceless humans as a result of their total depravity. In other words, atheists follow in the footsteps of their master, the devil.
It was pointed out earlier that “The negative expression and opposition of the depraved natures of humans and demons towards God in regards to any of His actions are always wrong”. It can’t be any other way, because God is perfectly holy and therefore incapable of performing evil in any of His actions. Thus, in every case wherein humans or demons judge God to be wrong, it is done through the total depravity and deep hatred of those who are evil and already condemned because of being evil. Evil can never rightly condemn the righteous or the innocent. Any attempt to do is nothing but injustce. The perfect holines of God, His inability to sin and the impossibility of any creature or thing to condemn Him is clearly understood by those who express their foolish wrath towards God. This understanding adds to the heinousness of atheism. Atheism was born out of the deep depravity and deceptive wrath of the lowest creature that ever existed. His anger towards God amounts to a deep desire to murder the Most High God, to get rid of all righteousness and establish evil as if it is good - in the midst of his knowledge that such is impossible. Thus, the wrath that he has towards God - his desire to murder and annihilate Him, has fallen on his own head. That is, the deep wrath of the Almighty God is upon him. He cannot carry out his wrath upon God, but there is nothing that can stop God from pouring out His wrath upon him. All who are of like mind as satan - who embrace his atheism also has the wrath of the Almighty God against them. If God doesn’t grant them His grace, they shall suffer eternal punishment in the lake of fire with satan. “…There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!”
Http://atheist-stooges.com
RE: "Anyone want to discuss what this retard Jonathan Wells says? I'll start. Darwinism is a fact. Blaming Darwin for eugenics, abortion and racism is like blaming Newton for the way bullets travel."
ReplyDeleteInformation is not in itself dangerous. It is what people choose to do with information which may or may not be considered dangerous.
As always, the ball is in our court.
"Blaming Darwin for eugenics, abortion and racism is like blaming Newton for the way bullets travel."
ReplyDeleteBrilliant observation.
I love the double-standards these people employ. It's okay to have biblical verses, morons like Wells blathering his drool, but not so for the other side of the fence to have a voice.
ReplyDeleteSad, but not shocking. Typical, really.
Cool, I haven't had a Fundy troll in a long time.
ReplyDeleteRaymond, if you are going to capitalize God, capitalize Satan too.
They are both fictional characters like Tom Sawyer, The Grinch, and Santa Claus.
You really should try to understand that atheism doesn't have a founder, but first man would have to invent the concept of God before someone could conclude that there is no evidence of God. Before that, humans were agnostic.
Southie, A mature person is one who can say: My parents may have made some mistakes raising me, but they did the best they could: now it’s up to me.
-- Shannon Fry
Starbucks customer from Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Way I See It #253
Fundie trolls are welcome at my blog. Beaj is being greedy and keeping them all to himself. :)
ReplyDeleteI more I read raymond's post, the more he sounds certifiably insane.
ReplyDeleteDude. Longest comment ever. My eyes started to glaze over.
ReplyDeleteBesides, why do we need to find an "origin" for atheism anyway? According to atheists, we evolved from creatures that don't believe in a god and religion came later. According to religious types, we were put here to believe in a god and atheism came later. The two will not, cannot overlap and his comment is completely illogical.
I like the cups, personally, as long as they give equal face time to all points of view. Why doesn't Starbucks put one quote on each side? One for an idea, one against. That way they aren't playing favorites. Plus it would be funny to compare a logical argument with one that you radically disagreed with.
basiorana: that's an excellent idea. Starbucks would be smart to look at it.
ReplyDeleteraymond: we all have books on our shelves in our homes (that's what separates us from the fundies). Shorten up your posts or no one will read them.
BEAJ:
ReplyDeleteI would only like to warn against the confusing use of terms like "Darwinism", "evolution", "evolutionism", "Evolutionary Biology".
"Darwinism", broadly speaking is the 'dangerous idea' of speciation, the theory of the origins of species, as expanded on in Origins by Charles Darwin. Darwin however was not aware of the mechanisms of heredity.
On the other hand "evolution" is the mechanism which leads to the occurrence of the species.
The term "evolutionism" is mostly used by those who believe it's all just another "-ism", an ideology or a "leftist construct", created by those who (allegedly) want to prove G-d doesn't exist. Hence the ridiculous brouhaha in the USA.
"Evolutionary Biology" is the multi-disciplinary science that explains speciation by evolution, as well as the hereditary principles as laid out by modern genetics.
Confounding those terms is a classical strategy used by those who cannot accept Man is the descendent of ape-like forebears because the notion brushes against their fundamentalist religious views.
Just my two cents...
Raymond:
ReplyDeleteDo you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists - particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetuators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.
If atheism was a religion, then this would be a good point.
However, it's not, & thus, this isn't.
Atheistic/atomistic/naturalistic schools of thought began in ancient Greece, w/parallels in India as well. Anaxagoras, Gosala, Democritus - there's actually a pretty long list of these fellows.
Obviously, you don't know squat, & are speaking from an orifice in your body that isn't your mouth.
I love the little bit where the 'bad kids' are picked out beforehand. Hilarious.
So much for a 'benevolent, all-loving' father.
If you can't see how malign that is, then you have my deepest sympathies.
I really like the way you think.
ReplyDeleteAlways,
Crusty
It's possible to ask what Darwin's views on eugenics were; this page suggests that he may have had some sympathy for the idea but found it too dangerous to support.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Darwin's views on eugenics have as little to do with the validity of his scientific position as Newton's writings on the Book of Daniel have to do with his.
The "problem" with evolution or perhaps I should say no belief in a higher power, is that our behaviour is not being audited by an omniscient judge. And if everything comes down to chance and/or error, being a decent or good person is irrelevent. You can only suffer the consequences of being caught by other people. If the payoff is worth the price of possibly getting caught or if you can convince the majority to agree that what you want is perfectly fine and perhaps advantageous to a significant segment of the population then you can do whatever pleases you. It means that genocide is ok. Abortion is ok. Euthanasia is ok. As long as you have a majority vote. All kinds of things can be justified. Many people are far to selfish to think of anything but their own immediate happiness to care about how something might effect others or the future. God and eternal judgement are good behaviour modification techniques for a good number of people who might otherwise run rampant with no self control. On the other hand, someone believing they are eternally doomed might decide to run rampant and take as many as he can with him and thereby be worse than someone who simply wants to die with the most toys.
ReplyDeleteI am a fairly decent person but I have my weaknesses. I would probably show a good bit less self control if I thought there was no God.
Maybe I'm a retard too.
And killing retards is absolutely fine if you can talk enough people into going along with that as long as there is no God.
Jeannie, first off evolution and belief in a higher power are two separate things. Ask Dr. Ken Miller if you don't believe me.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that chaos would happen without belief in God is refutable. First off, atheists are totally under represented in jails. Secondly, when you look at the "morality and ethics" of other social animals in the animal kingdom, you can see that it would there is an inherent piece to the puzzle that comes with our desire to survive and procreate that stops us from acting with ruthless abandon.
I'm calling the "Dr." a retard because he is blaming the fact of evolution on immoral behavior. That is like blaming a the doctor who delivered Hitler for Hitler's action.
I enjoy the Starbuck's cups alot, they serve their purpose (or claimed purpose). And the idea posted to have point/counter-point would be a great marketing decision...to a certain extent, but if you think in a Socratic Method you would realize only offering 1 point leaves the user up to solving a dichotomy on their own...which adding in the counterpoint would elimate the uniqueness of the "problem". =)
ReplyDeletePutting in the point/counterpoint seems like a good marketing idea for the simple minded folks/mass media fed (and hungry for) individuals that the United States is known for. =) Not to throw us all in one barrel, I'm American too.
I should add another thing. People turn to drugs and even drug addiction to escape reality. To me it is equivalent to escaping reality by denying evolution, maybe even worse is the latter because a drug addict doesn't necessarily deny 1+1=2
ReplyDeleteJeannie:
ReplyDelete"God and eternal judgement are good behaviour modification techniques for a good number of people who might otherwise run rampant with no self control."
Firstly, that's only going to fly if G-d showed himself to us, perhaps in a sequel to the much debunked "Burning Bush" story.
Secondly, thanks for confirming what so many atheists accept: that religion is by and large an instrument of social control. Still works splendidly for an otherwise enlightened society like the good ole' US of A.
Also works brilliantly for some of the US's arch-enemies: the towelheads from al-Qaeda...
jeanie:
ReplyDeleteThe "problem" with evolution or perhaps I should say no belief in a higher power, is that our behaviour is not being audited by an omniscient judge. And if everything comes down to chance and/or error, being a decent or good person is irrelevent. You can only suffer the consequences of being caught by other people. If the payoff is worth the price of possibly getting caught or if you can convince the majority to agree that what you want is perfectly fine and perhaps advantageous to a significant segment of the population then you can do whatever pleases you.
That, my dear, is the definition of a sociopath.
If you contain any element of empathy, any knowledge of how an act can cause pain or loss, & actually feel for your fellow man, then you're pretty much NOT a sociopath.
Sociopaths don't do well in societies, as a rule.
Suggesting that some 'auditor' is necessary to keep everyone in line says more to the character of the folks who need them.
I'm old school: I say, 'do the right thing' not because I expect an award - but because it's the right thing to do.
I don't require some bell to ring for me to salivate.
Millions of people who are religious also accept evolution.
ReplyDeleteIt is mainly bible literalists who find it difficult to accept evolution - oh, and the braindead.
No Christianity, no anti-semitism. The Crusaders who committed massacres of the Jews while marching through Europe on their way to the "Holy Land" were not inspired by Darwin.
ReplyDeleteI swear - dealing with religious ideologues becomes more like trying to combat a stumbling swarm of zombies.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I am in a bad remake of a scene from "Shawn of the Dead."
http://www.shaunofthedeadmovie.com/splash.html
I agree with what you all are saying. I am not saying that athiests are evil. I am saying that some people work better with outside discipline. IF evolution = No God, then there are some who will not behave as well. There are some dangerous paths that may be taken if the "right" people get it into their heads that evolution might be helped along in a certain direction. Of course, the same can and has been done in the name of various Gods hasn't it? Not evolution but doing God's work. Maybe it's just people who are the problem.
ReplyDeleteI also know that others see evolution being played out in the manner of Star Trek...the further evolved, the kinder and more wise we are. This could also inspire people to be more loving and forward thinking in order to be one of the more highly evolved of the species.
You know - this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius...that sort of New Age stuff without the hoodoo.
I can not prove God. Because of my experiences, however subjective or psychotic they may be, I believe. And my belief gives me comfort and even occasionally keeps me from doing something regretable. No, I am not at all homicidal. And for me, it is not the judgement but the thought that there is a reason or meaning for all of history to have been played out that motivates me. Without my experiences, I would most certainly be an athiest. I don't particularly like a lot of Christians out there who shove their view of what God wants down people's throats as if they even knew. I don't particularly think the organized Christian church is anything like God wants. Frankly, there are many things that athiests point out that are thought provoking and should probably convince many that there is no God. If they let themselves think about it. Me, I am looking forward to the day when it is all explained. When I can see how it all fits.
As far as anti-Semitism goes, that existed before Christianity. And while the Catholic church may promote anti-semitism, any Protestant church I have been to continues to hold the Jewish people up as God's chosen and respect that position. Of course, there are many in the church who do not truly believe - agnostics perhaps, who have not really studied the faith, but like the social aspects or perhaps the music or ritual of belonging to church - who are subject to being convinced that Jews are behind ridiculous conspiracies and other gobbledygook out there in the world.
When you think about it, there really are a lot of messed up people - probably all of us.
Jeannie:
ReplyDelete"As far as anti-Semitism goes, that existed before Christianity"
Whoooaaa! ROFLOL and pissing myself... The root cause of anti-Semitism is Christianity, you know, bad Jooooos rejecting the Messy Boy? Joooos being the original Christie killers and assorted nonsense that still lives on today?
Sure, anti-Semitism is now no longer an exclusively Christian prerogative but whilst the Colouring-in Book of Myths may not be the root cause of all evil, it has a lot, a lot to answer for when it comes to Jewish persecution in the last 1,500 years or so...
man - that was a long comment - sorry
ReplyDeleteJeannie, your comment was fine as far as length goes. I admire your honesty. But I also knew you opened yourself up for a bit of a bashing:)
ReplyDeleteBash away - I don't really care. It just shows that human beings can't live nicely together regardless of their religious beliefs
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way- there are many who would argue whether the Catholic Church is Christian at all in spite of what they say. Same with JW's, Christian Science, Mormons and on and on.
ReplyDeleteBeepbeep: I fail to see the difference between biblical literalists and the braindead.
ReplyDeleteJeannie, I don't see atheists and theists not coexisting.
ReplyDeleteAnd I realize that all these religions can't agree agree on who are real Christians, even though they all accept Jesus Christ as a super hero.
To me, if you accept Jesus as a God or Saviour, or Messiah, then you are a Christian.
It just goes to show that God should have been more exact with his Inspired Words. He should have kept it simple and then there wouldn't be so many Christian cults out there.
"Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record."
ReplyDeleteThat is the fallacy of guilt by association, and a very weak association at that.
I should also like to point out that one cannot blame science for abuses driven by political and sociological purposes. When one practices eugenics, and scientific racism, one ceases doing science. By definition, science cannot be responsible for the abuses committed by pseudoscientists. This immediately buries the charge that science is responsible for good and bad effects in the world.
Alan.
Raymond said:
ReplyDelete"The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin - that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time. Atheism is not a manmade doctrine but a doctrine of the demons."
Your assertion commits the fallacy of begging the question. Obviously, if atheism originates from demons, then demons exist. However, since you assert that atheism is the word of demons, then you have to assume that demons exist in order to demonsrate their existence. Your reasoning is therefore circular, and logically invalid.
Your assertion that doctrines had a birth outside of this time falls prey to the fallacy of equivocation because it uses the term "doctrine" interchangeably to mean two different things. A doctrine created by humans is obviously different to a doctrine created by demons, yet you assume that if the cause of the doctrine is unknown, a man made concept such as a doctrine applies to a non-human source in the same sense that it does in daily life. Your argument is also therefore a special form of equivocation, known as reification (treating an abstract concept as if it were concrete).
It gets worse, for you. You assume that human concepts such as doctrines and atheism existed before man existed, meaning that doctrines and atheism were self-bootstrapping entities which existed before they existed, while in their non-existence saw non-theistic humans coming before they existed. To quote Richard Dawkins "Nobody, not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict, other than BARKING MAD!"
On an aside, David Hume deals with uncaused causes in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature". I suggest that you read it.
You really need to brush up on your reasoning, because at the moment, you do so like a sophist. You spin arguments round like a record, baby, right round, and round again.
Alan.
I could only stand to read the first two paragraphs of raymond's post. At first I thought it was a joke, how could someone make a post that long, and not even understand what he was writing about?
ReplyDeleteAs for the so called biologist, how he can be a biologist and not see that evolution is scientifically accpeted is beyond me.
I'm an atheist, but I feel it necessary to point out a few things:
ReplyDeleteIF evolution = No God,
It does not. Who's to say that God hasn't used evolution to get us where we are? Not in the sense of guiding and tweaking it time marches on, but in the sense of setting the universe in motion with well-defined principles and finely tuned initial conditions such that humanity would evolve on its own. Don't you find the unimaginable intelligence of such a being far more awe-inspiring than the wizardry of one who could snap his fingers to create the earth with some childish ruse of "planting fossils" to test our faith?
There are some dangerous paths that may be taken if the "right" people get it into their heads that evolution might be helped along in a certain direction.
The problem with humans is that they often believe something, and then search for rationalizations for that belief, and not the other way around. If evolution didn't exist to justify a sociopath's eugenics efforts, then he would simply find another.
If you contain any element of empathy, any knowledge of how an act can cause pain or loss, & actually feel for your fellow man, then you're pretty much NOT a sociopath.
I'm of the position that emotions aren't necessary for a strict moral code. All that's required is a respect for your fellow person's freedom. The rest simply follows.
As for the origins of atheism: atheism is what you are left with when you simply remove all mistaken assumptions, and unjustified beliefs. When you allow yourself to accept only required assumptions, you are forced to conclude that atheism is the default position.
So in a sense, each atheist "invents" it himself.