Strange Notions is a new Disqus site run by Brandon Vogt to try to discuss Rationality and Reason with Athiests. He may well succeed with some, but there is one subset of atheism he will never succeed with. On Richard Dawkin's spectrum of theistic probability , those with a score 6 and above often fall into something I term fundamentalist atheism. Many of them come from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds, if not in their generation, then within three generations of their recent past. Fundamentalist Atheism starts with the assumption that the supernatural doesn't exist and that the natural world is all there is, and runs with it, denying any data to the contrary. I've always been one to consider the natural to be a subset of the supernatural- that is the only real difference between the natural and the supernatural to me is the line of the shared scientific knowledge of mankind. A scientist, therefore, if he is to learn anything new about the universe, needs to have h...
Comments
I have to ask though: Why *must* the designer lack the other attributes? What in evolution, say, removes the possibility of the Trinity (especially since, trinitarian creatures do exist in nature)?
After all, by your standards where the modern is all that counts, there should be no reason to know the past.
Except, of course, the past WERE scientists and theologians, every bit as capable as the ones we have today- perhaps even more so (maybe I'd have more respect for Dawkins if _The God Delusion_ was five volumes and nearly 500 chapters, with cross references, footnotes, and quotes).
If anything, "modern science" has lost the ability to philosophize to that extent- and "modern man" has lost the attention span needed to read it.
People think that the stories have some truth to them and that God chose to walk among in the past (which conveniently can't be verified or disproved). Relics and holy places are good for business.
There is nothing in the history of the world that in any way cause me to lose my atheism. The more I learn about history, the more certain I am that religion is a crock.
It's not that I am afraid of them. I just think we know more about the world around us today than we did centuries ago. Modern science has enlightened us. We know that the ancient religions with their various gods were wrong. Eventually, we will know that today's religions are wrong as well.
Gosnell showed us that with his scientific infanticide. And there are many, many other events where science, without religion, has been shown to be more wrong than even the most primitive pagans.
So once again, the data of even recent history is against your conclusion.
Had that problem back in the day too, but they had to at least dress up the scandal and make it look within reason, lest some rich kid reject his father's wealth, go running out of the church naked, and then proceed to create trouble for the next 500 years.
Not true. Ethics is a key component of modern thinking. It is in morals that the controversies arise. Especially sexual morals where the Church and modern society have their differences.
Ethics is at best an afterthought in modern thinking. Sometimes a very distant afterthought. Modernist ethics is no more than rationalization after the fact and NEVER holds up research for long unless forced by law.
Ethics is a key component in evaluating human cloning. Modern thinkers have opinions on it. It is viewed as ethical despite the views of the Catholic Church, which gets hung about things like this because of its ideas about the human soul (I assume). The A-bomb saved American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. There weren't any better options for ending the war unless you consider our surrendering to be a better option.
Yeah. I really don't understand how that accomplishes that or if there is really such a conspiracy as that. But I can't see getting worked up about people having a more healthy attitude to sexuality than what the Catholic Church would impose on us.
In that case, your ethics is worthless.
"The A-bomb saved American lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Japan. There weren't any better options for ending the war unless you consider our surrendering to be a better option."
That's the lie we tell ourselves, in reality, all we needed to do was give assurance that the emperor wouldn't be tried for war crimes and the Japanese would have surrendered a year earlier. It was the only condition they were asking for in the peace talks.
Which, oddly enough, was exactly the condition on surrender *after* dropping the A-bomb as well. Nuclear weapons are unnecessary and dangerous.
Seems to me your ethics is rather, well, unethical and ridiculously immoral.
US Population Growth and Family Planning including the faulty 1970s math that failed to live up to the correct predictions for world population.
I don't consider spreading STDs and sexual slavery to be more healthy. In fact, you have a rather strange definition of "more healthy" in this area that simply does NOT fit the facts.
Are you for real?
This to me seems to be an extreme parenting error.
I was going to ignore this remark, but I feel I should offer a response. I can't help but wonder what you would do if you learned that your child was gay. I can only imagine the psychological harm that you would inflict on that child.
In other words, exactly the opposite of what my parents did with me when I was being hit on by predatory gays and being rejected repeatedly by the females I was attracted to.
So, then marriage would not be an option unless both partners chose to remain celibate. What would you do if he ignored your advice? Would you fear for his immortal soul?
But I would be *very* worried about his mortal body, and I would find it extremely hard to trust any partner he fell in lust with.
Probably just like I'm acting with his precocious heterosexuality; I'm trying to get to know all of his girlfriends and make sure they're good people too- but with special needs it's really hard (especially the girl he says he wants to marry-H. has a lower functioning form of autism than I do, as well as ocd and other issues that prevent even adequate communication at times. And the girl who wants to marry him, J. who is always begging her parents to come over to our house, and who is struggling to learn modesty).
And that you should *ONLY* have sex after marriage and when you want a child.
In other words, the TRUTH instead of screwing him up by lying to him like my parent's generation did in the sexual revolution. Our society would have been better off if that had never have happened, but since it did, TOTAL transparency is the answer- including confessing our own sins to our children.
That is an exageration. Here is the truth:
"The test conducted by Consumer Reports involved inflating the condoms to a certain air pressure. Most could hold up to 38 liters of air. The Planned Parenthood Honeydew? It broke 12 out of 120 times (%10) at pressures below 25 liters. The article doesn't speculate as to the reason for this low performance."
Your attitude toward sex is antiquated and unhealthy.
I don't consider accepting the views of Planned Parenthood to be unhealthy and certainly not psychopathic. I think you are very extreme in some of your judgments of others.
I can't believe you get so worked up about condoms as if there something so terrible about using them.
I find the logic of the anti humanists to be no more worthy of respect than an Aztec throwing his enemies off the pyramid.
I don't always understand your analogies. Who is sacrificing humanity at a holy altar?
In other words, those people who put progress and profit above people- on both sides of the political spectrum. Liberty is not worth it, and when freedom and choice lead to genocide and bigotry, it is time to oppose freedom and choice.
It is time to say, we will not take your evil any more.
What would you recommend instead of freedom and choice?
The second would be far more interesting, because it would enable experimentation in value systems.
But for it, the economic segregation would need to be total, and the citizenry of any one jurisdiction be kept small.