http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2012/apr/21/science-and-common-sense-point-gods-existence/
After raising the Kalam cosmological argument and the argument from complexity as supposed proof of a scientific explanation of god, the author ends his claim that science makes god's existence probable with this zinger:
But if you wish to be more than just a rational theist whose belief is based on science and common sense, there is a way to know God more intimately. It is by personal revelation. If we sincerely turn to God, he will reveal himself in our hearts. He told us so himself: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”
Okay, so personal revelation in your heart is scientific just how exactly?So science says "god" is a product of quieting one part of the brain. Justifying your faith by referring to "science" apparently requires the quieting of several more parts of the brain.
Oh, and what a "win" for Christians that Dawkins is willing to use the word "agnostic." Apparently they are too lazy to read his book, or the dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."
Oh, and what a "win" for Christians that Dawkins is willing to use the word "agnostic." Apparently they are too lazy to read his book, or the dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic."
16 comments:
That article is just more proof that theism is a crutch for the ignorant and weak-minded.
Yep, they would have trouble with both parts of the term "free-thinker"
I actually have one of those deluded holy rollers trying to preach to me on my blog for the past two days. it's really quite annoying when they are so trapped in their delusion that no evidence to the contrary is ever sufficient.
It's far too threatening to their sense of self & their sense of security. The amygdala is in charge!
Tell me about it, Chatpilot; I've been debating the theists on that articles comment section since yesterday afternoon. One of them told me to contemplate a rose in-depth; there is all the evidence for God that any normal person needs. I responded by telling him to examine a squid in depth; there is all the evidence for Cthulhu that any normal person needs. =)
Why don't they consider icky things ever? Why not look at cockroaches or starving babies and explain those things?
Look, everyone, our favorite lunatic has gotten free of his padded cell. So tell us, what makes me a scumbag when your "god" is the one who told his followers to indulge in rape, torture, slavery, and ethnic cleansing? Oh that's right; because you're the scumbag, and you're merely projecting your inadequacies upon others. Crawl back into your hole; we both LA is just going to delete your witless ravings when she gets back.
Not deleted, sent to the "Spam" folder where it belongs
Oh yeah, sorry about that.
Never let go of evidence of teh crazy
I've done over 300 posts since 2010. And, I've been blogging since '03 in different formats and under different names/themes. I'm currently running two blogs... I have had up to five running, concurrently.
If you're referring to the disparity of comments, well, that's where quality comes in. Truth, historically, has never been popular with the masses. I don't shy away from truth because it's not popular. That's the difference between you and I.
There is only so much time in the week, you know.
Dalliances with teh troLLolio have been moved to the Spam folder. If you want to read tEh cRaZy the idiot reposts it at his own blog because he's so in love with his own delusions he thinks someone will admire him for them. See for yourself http://houseofgideon.blogspot.com/
"Evolution, by your definition, couldn't exist without "Abiogenesis"."
For someone who claims to be a servant of truth, you certainly enjoy lying through your teeth. I have never said that evolution requires abiogenesis to work. Life adapts to it's environment regardless of how it got here. And abiogenesis, unlike evolution, hasn't been proven.
"I know about the theory of something from nothing and it's foolishness. There is either something or nothing and something doesn't come from nothing."
Which is all well and good, but unrelated to evolution, which you've admitted to accepting.
"Gravity is not a constant everywhere in the universe, or even on Earth."
So? I didn't say it was, I was making an analogy.
"It can be influenced by many factors. Certainly the One that created gravity could influence it or negate it, if He chose."
Hypothetically speaking, such a being could. But this doesn't change evolution.
"You can't... therefore nothing or no one else can, that's your reasoning."
Once again, you making a straw-man. My reasoning is that a phenomenon which has been in play since life first appeared isn't going to randomly change on a fundamental level for no reason at all. Evolution is observed every day. Deny it if you will, but it doesn't change the thousands of peer-approved articles establishing adaptations.
"Because B.R. didn't see it, it isn't possible."
Yet another pathetic straw-man.
"Oh, I forgot, he didn't see "abiogenesis" but, he believes it happened..."
I never said I accepted abiogenesis. It still hasn't been proven yet, so there's no logical reason for me to do so. Your strawmen are becoming increasingly absurd.
"Evolution is simply a literary term, to me, with no basis in science as it pertains to the creation or sustaining of life."
Then you're scientifically illiterate, since the two terms are on and the same. "Adaptation" has been used to describe evolution by every scientist since Darwin's day. You can't make up new definitions of old words, Gideon.
"In fact, it's only recently (within a few years) that infidels have come to agree on an approximate age for the earth, or for the extinction of the dinosaurs..."
That's because we kept finding older and older rocks, Gideon.
"both wrong, of course."
Sorry, but you fail. Radiometric dating. The end.
"Your "transitional" fossils aren't proof of anything, either."
Except evolution.
"They have no way of knowing if they are not simply other forms of similar life... like the many varieties of butterflies, moths, etc."
Ah, shifting the goalposts. First creationists claim that transitional fossils don't exist, and demand to be shown them, and when they're presented, they say that are really transitional forms, but just different lifeforms, even though we can trace the evolution of the horse through several ancestor species.
"Evolutionists dogmatically decree that their interpretations of the natural world are the only valid ones."
It isn't dogmatic when every available observation and piece of evidence backs it up. You might as well talk about the dogmatism of round-earthers for dogmatically asserting that the earth is a sphere.
"They say "trust us, we're right!" With only supposition and theory to guide them, at worst case scenario for me, it's simply my faith verses theirs."
Except that you're wrong and are the only relying on faith. That's why you don't accept transitional forms; because then you'd be forced to revise your worldview to suit new data.
"Common sense favors mine."
The site I linked to refutes that sentence.
B.R. I don't read Gideon's posts, I just move them to Spam, but judging from your quotations I have to wonder if he's not a Poe. Surely someone can't really believe all that nonsense.
I'm not sure, L.A. If he is a poe, then he's the most fanatically devoted poe I've ever seen. But as usual, you make a good point.
LOL!
Post a Comment